|
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
 
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | I just received the following from the Hindu Press International. I found it to be very disturbing and strange...thought I'd share this with you guys. Although, I'm not really sure how I feel about this article - I'm puzzled about it - especially the part about the woman claiming to have left her physical body and not being sure about *who checked in, and who checked out*, however, it was very interesting to say the least...the very least. Did I mention that this came from a *former* practictioner of Yoga. My opinion and my immediate reaction to this is that this woman obviously did not make a connection with her practice and therefore had to find a way to criticize and judge something in which she failed to understand - this is ignorance with a capital I.
NEW YORK, USA, May 18, 2005: A former American practitioner of yoga has
cast the fitness regime in a narrow Hindu religious context and offered
a "Christian alternative" says this article in the Hindustan Times
(based on a report in Christianity Today magazine). "From experience I
can say that yoga is a dangerous practice for the Christian and leads
seekers away from God rather than to him. You may say, 'Well, I'm not
doing any of the meditation stuff. I'm just following the exercises.'
It is impossible, however, to separate the subtleties of yoga, the
technique from yoga the religion. I know because I taught and practised
hatha yoga for years," said Laurette Willis. "Those who think yoga is
little more than a series of stress-relieving stretching exercises may
be surprised to learn about the true foundation of the
multibillion-dollar yoga craze in North America. There are an estimated
15-20 million people practising yoga in the US and over 50,000 yoga
instructors offering classes at approximately 20,000 locations," says
Willis. (HPI adds: Willis is a professional actor, motivational speaker
and standup comedienne whose website is
http://www.laurettewillis.com/.)
Over the last several decades, she says, yoga has been embraced by the
mainstream of society--and even the Christian church. "We don't often
think of other religions having missionaries, but the philosophy and
practice of yoga have been primary tools of Hindu 'missionaries' to
America since 'Indian priest and mystic' Swami Vivekananda introduced
yoga to the West at the 1893 World's Fair in Chicago," Willis writes.
Willis offers an intriguing perspective on pranayama, one of the
fundamental techniques of yoga that teaches breathing well. "Yoga's
breathing techniques (pranayama) may seem stress-relieving, yet they
can be an open door to psychic influences, as is the customary
relaxation period at the end of a yoga session. Before becoming a
Christian, I remember numerous instances of 'travelling outside my
body' during yoga relaxation periods. I wonder who--or what--checked in
when I checked out?" she says. Citing an unnamed staff member of a yoga
academy, Willis adds, "I've received some stunning confirmation from an
unlikely source. A staff member of an east coast Classical Yoga Academy
wrote to me, 'Yes, all of yoga is Hinduism. Everyone should be aware of
this fact.'" In February 2001 Willis said the idea for a Christian
alternative to yoga came "from the Lord."
| |
| | |
| I think Willis is channelling Andy Kaufman and ****ing with folks. | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | Huh?? and ****ing with folks. Care to elaborate the **** part Bruce?? I didn't quite get that,    | |
| | |
| Its interesting but the number zero (Sunya) was invented in a very religious context by Hindus to describe the Ultimate. Thus, "True Christians" should stop using the number zero as it leads away from God band is inherently heretic,
Regards. | |
| | |
| I hate to see things like this - the lunatic fringe tainting the entire picture. I hope that the sensible people of the world will not judge all of Christianity by such foolish ideas as this lady has. 
| |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
 
Location: A Blue State | In February 2001 Willis said the idea for a Christian alternative to yoga
came "from the Lord."
Hardly surprising, since Lord Siva also gave us yoga. 
Om nama Sivaya. | |
| | |
| I have heard/read this same sort of thing before, mostly from articles brought to me by someone saying "Can you believe this crap?"
There will always be someone speaking out against anything they don't understand. People who practice yoga know how silly this is, so I'm not too worried.
Granted, people can have confusing experiences that they might associate with whatever new thing is going on in their lives. The general public obviously does not feel this way; they're turned on to yoga and they want to know more! Plus, the fact that this woman is an actress and stand-up comic makes me suspect that rather than being confused and afraid, she is just using this as a publicity stunt. I'll be very surprised if it gets her the attention she is hoping for. | |
| | |
| There's no mystery here. This is just another fast-talking con artist making a buck off of cautious people. In this case, the caution is religious, rather than for their health or wealth.
If you look at her web page, you will see that she is the founder of a "Christian" form of aerobics. You could look at this as being either a service to people who would not seek exercise in another venue, or as a clever marketing ploy to create a market for a product that she wants to offer.
I think that the same could be said about this yoga "alternative." The fact that she trashes yoga in the process is part of the "creating a market" thing. As with many niche markets, an effective ploy is to trash the competition. In this case, the competition for her "Christian Yoga" is real yoga.
This is fairly transparent to thinking folks, and as for the others, who really cares...
| |
| | |
| As a Christian, I do not find find yoga to be a spiritual practice. For me, all of the movements and and breathing exercises are benificial on a purely physical level for purely scientific reasons - there is no spirituality behind it. | |
| | |
| As a Judeo-Christian believer I find the yogic experience brings me closer to God. J-C values strive to get one out of one's comfort-zone, out of merely thinking of ourselves, right? Bikram yoga gets me so far out of my comfort zone; I am in constant communication with God during my practice. How does God teach us lessons? Mostly through humility, I think. Is there anything more humbling than a Bikram class? One can also dedicate one's daily practice to a loved one or better yet, to an enemy.
But, not all practices are spiritual in nature. It's a personal thang.
(PS With Mr. Bikram, what you see is what you get - he's probably less scandalous than many preachers out there since Mr. B is very overt and not hiding anything.) | |
| | |
| Right on Elson! I had the same reaction. Christian alternative ----Puh-leeese! | |
| | |
| i think it's strange too.
as an eccuminical christian, i believe that most paths lead to God, that they are 95% the same, and the 5% difference is usually culture, language, and symbology (and sometimes a little bit of complete bunk, like sexism, racism, etc). Therefore, what would be the problem of adding things in from other religions if the disciplines lead in the same direction or enhance the 'first' chosen path?
similarly, christians practice meditation. for some reason, it's downplayed greatly in neofun****etalism, but it has been a long-held devotional practice in western religions. anyway. . . | |
| | |
| also, i doubt she ever 'checked out' of her body, but had a euphoric floating feeling. therefore, nothing could enter. just because she wasn't mindful and thereby wasn't 'present' doesn't mean that there was some whacky body snatching going on (and besides, to the best of my knowledge, whacky body snatching doesn't exist--because even OOBEs and APs are an aspect of being fully present and extending beyond the body, rather than leaving the body to travel beyond it. therefore, even then, you could never leave the body, and nothing could ever come and take your place.
crazy woman. must be a newbie christian. | |
| | |
| People like this take on a tremendous amount of Karma. She personaly needs to be careful of being out of her body cause of the kind of entities that can and probably are in her space. Religions can be conduits for entities that want power but are not allowed to have a physical body anymore. I have a few christian students of yoga and their six chakra is very occupied by fear of letting go. The fear of losing control and finding out that life force flows most powerfully beyond belief or control systems. When I look at her picture her chin tells alot about her personality. A strong rigidity. Makes it hard to kiss. | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 8442
| OOOOOOOh! I had to go back and look - yes, a VERY hard chin! That sharp hair might be an issue in the lovin' department as well... I must dash to a mirror and check for sharpness | |
| | |
| The article did not surprise me because I knew many christian harldliners who did not let their kids practice yoga in schools as they believed that it was Hindu technique. The problem is that Christ used to practice Yoga as evident from following comments in new testaments.
1) Kingdom of God is within you.
2) When thy eye will be single, your body will be full of light.
3) Man must be reborn in spirit to enter kindome of God
4) I am the truth...
5) Before Abrahm was I am
6) In the beginning there was word and word was with GOD and God was the word
.....
How are the above comments related to YOGA? When yogis reach a certain stage, they can experience all the truth in bible as something personal and then move beyond scripture understanding.
e.g. When third eye opens, the two eyes close and single eye sees the body full of light.
Yogis when they are one in Christ consciousness, they can hear the sound that was in the beginning with God.
For more details, you may want to read
Second Coming of Chrsit by Yogananda. I think it is avaialbe at Amazan.com
| |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 8442
| Hi nath - that explanation works for those with a liberal view of religion and spirituality but does not work at all for the "hardliners." There are also some very specific theological arguements I've read by those with far more education that I have that show that for many people, doing yoga for more than physical excercise just is not in line with their beliefs. And that is ok, I think. I find it sad though, that the ultra conservatives feel they need an "alternative" practice (which looks pretty much exactly like the non-alternative as I see it  ) because it separates and divides people and communities when we really need a lot less separateness and more togetherness. | |
| | |
| Ha, ha, ha, I like that about that lady's chin! I love facial diagnosis. I'm not very good at it, but I do notice her chin and lips are the opposite of Angolina Jolie's. Thus, in comparison, the mathematical equation for Ms. Rigid's chin-sexiness would come out to a negative number.
There's a book out there I've been meaning to read called "Jesus lived in India". It's an account of Jesus' life after resurrection. The theory of this book is that Jesus sailed to India and practiced Reiki for 16 years (or so).
| |
| | |
| *Fifi* - 2005-07-24 12:50 PM Ha, ha, ha, I like that about that lady's chin! I love facial diagnosis. I'm not very good at it, but I do notice her chin and lips are the opposite of Angolina Jolie's. Thus, in comparison, the mathematical equation for Ms. Rigid's chin-sexiness would come out to a negative number. There's a book out there I've been meaning to read called "Jesus lived in India". It's an account of Jesus' life after resurrection. The theory of this book is that Jesus sailed to India and practiced Reiki for 16 years (or so). ! Fifi, do you know the author of that book? It sounds very interesting, though somewhat unusual! Thanks!
Echo  | |
| | |
| Echo,
Looks like Amazon has the book "Jesus Lived in India: His Life Before and After the Crucifixion" by Holger Kerston starting around $22.00.
If you plug that title into Amazon they give you additional, similar titles. I'm inspired to see if my local library has any copies. One never knows....
| |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | nathss - 2005-07-23 9:46 PM
The article did not surprise me because I knew many christian harldliners who did not let their kids practice yoga in schools as they believed that it was Hindu technique. The problem is that Christ used to practice Yoga as evident from following comments in new testaments.
1) Kingdom of God is within you.
2) When thy eye will be single, your body will be full of light.
3) Man must be reborn in spirit to enter kindome of God
4) I am the truth...
5) Before Abrahm was I am
6) In the beginning there was word and word was with GOD and God was the word
.....
Nathss --- These are marvelous observations. It is unfortunate that they have not
been more strongly emphasized in mainline christian interpretation.... BG
| |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 8442
| Welcome back BG!  | |
| | |
| actually, bay guy, i would say that they *have* been emphasized in 'mainline' christianity such as catholic, lutheran, anglican, orthodox, and those related. they have not been emphasized by neo-fundamentalist christianity which is largely an american development that has it's roots/started around the late 1800s.
neofundamental christianity is very vocal, very loud, though, so it *seems* like mainstream christianity. in fact, it is a relatively small aspect (though growing) of christianity, and most christians do emphasize these elements--which is why so many have yoga classes offered in their churches. | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 8442
| Good point, zoebird. But those "fundies" as someone called them recently (maybe one of my kids...) are becoming so vocal the world is starting to believe, very incorrectly of course, that they represent North American values as a whole. Sound familiar? | |
| | |
| It seems like many hardcore Christians really aren't acquainted with the history of the Christian Church. Reincarnation was one of the Christ's original teachings: it was outlawed in the 3rd century AD. Think about it: what does Christianity offer? Everlasting life! If you already believe in the transmigration of the soul and karma, then what power does Church have over you?
Bear in mind that the Catholic Church was the major temporal power for many centuries.
I read a book about the Christ by Dolores Cannon, a past-life regressionist. She writes that Jesus had an uncle who was a rich merchant with many sailing ships. In his teens and early twenties, Jesus traveled not only to yoga enriched India but also to England to study with the Druids.
Dolores started her own press since no one would print her books. | |
| | |
| That's interesting since the Bible doesn't mention Jesus' life before the age of 30. | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | zoebird - 2005-07-29 8:22 AM
actually, bay guy, i would say that they *have* been emphasized in 'mainline' christianity such as catholic, lutheran, anglican, orthodox, and those related. they have not been emphasized by neo-fundamentalist christianity which is largely an american development that has it's roots/started around the late 1800s.
neofundamental christianity is very vocal, very loud, though, so it *seems* like mainstream christianity. in fact, it is a relatively small aspect (though growing) of christianity, and most christians do emphasize these elements--which is why so many have yoga classes offered in their churches.
Well...I'm not sure I want to investigate this line of argument. We'd have to agree on
whether "mainline" means moderate protestant streams or historical fundamentalist
streams etc etc.
Let me approach it this way: in the Episcopalian Liturgy you have [approximately]
the phrase "We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs from beneath
Thy table..." This does not seem to me consistent with the lines that Nathss quotes
from the Bible, which suggest that man has the opportunity to become one with god
through his own efforts (e.g., rather than by divine grace).
Elson and I had a long conversation about some of these ideas in which he represented
the christian [fundamentalist] viewpoint admirably. I'm not certain whether the more
moderate strains of christianity actually differ when you get down to basic theology,
although they are clearly more liberal in their "enforcement" of the basics.
| |
| | |
| i tend to look to more orthodox streams of christianity in general, as opposed to newer fundamentalist groups, which cropped up in europe in the 1600s and 1700s, and in particular the strains that cropped up in the US in the late 1800s, which seem even more strange and more 'fundamentalist' than the european groups that predate them. but then, america was made for weirdos.
truthfully, it would require a determination of what one considers 'mainstream' and which aspects of the theology that one focuses on. being raised catholic, it seems largely contradictory in language, but on further contemplation (on my own part) i discovered that it was simply the same idea housed in different language to teach different hearers as they may need. I found much of catholic theology to mirror that which we find in yoga, even when the language didn't betray this fact easily.
but, i think it's worthwhile to point out that many churches offer yoga in their buildings. I have been rejected from room rental at some churches (baptist, namely), but for the most part, i've also been invited into churches to teach (catholic, lutheran, episcopal, methodist, united church of christ, unitarian, quaker etc). I've also been invited to mosques and synagogues. So, it can't be that much of a conflict! In most of these cases, i didn't approach the church leaders to rent a space, i was called and asked to do it--and the group learning was made up largely of members of the church. There was prayer, chanting, meditation, comparitive religious studies (i'd tell a vedic story and then mirror it with a christian, jewish, or muslim one).
if a church or religious community is offering yoga, then they can't really have that much of a conflict with it's teachings, or they wouldn't offer it. at least, that's my thinking. | |
| | |
| My father is a practicing Catholic for the past 65 years. The priest at his church had a Zen Monk (can't remember the title) teach Zen meditation over a 6 week course at the church. My parents, Father Joe (the priest) and many members of the church participated the entire 6 weeks. My parents even shelled out $110.00 each for 2 meditation stools. And they NEVER spend money.
God is Love, right?
PS My mom, also 65, just bought her first yoga mat this week Will the craziness ever end! | |
| | |
| there's a whole movement within the catholic church called the 'zen catholic' movement. might like Thomas Merton's Zen and Christianity (catholic monk), and thich naht han's CHrist and Buddha As Brothers. | |
| | |
| Hi guys & gals :-)
Wow! I've been busy for awhile & have not had a chance to visit :-(. OTOH, when I get here, there is a great conversation :-).
My comments below come from the core of Christian theology, which as Bay Guy pointed out, does not change that much from one denomination to another. To be precise, I sit at the feet of Moses, Jesus, the prophets and apostles, the Church Fathers, the early catholic Church, Martin Luthor, John Calvin, the Reformed church in general, and the Prebyterian (PCA) church in particular. Not, I suspect, that that clarifies very much :-).
*
Nathss - The central flaw in Yogananda's book is that he doesn't have a clue about Jesus or Christianity. According to the obvious teaching of the bible, YHWH is God, and there is no other; never was & never will be. You and I are not God, and we never will be, either through grace or our own effort. That which is God cannot become not-God, & vice versa.
Had Yogananda taken hold of this essential tenet of Christianity, he would have realized that all of his attempts to read stuff into the bible lead to conflicts with the rest of the text. Taking the example of the third eye,
>> When yogis reach a certain stage, they can experience all the truth in bible as something personal and then move beyond scripture understanding.
e.g. When third eye opens, the two eyes close and single eye sees the body full of light.
Yogananda's interpretation is whimsical but totally unsupported by anything in biblical theology. There is no third eye in Christianity, and it is impossible to move beyond the truth of the bible, because the bible contains all spiritual truth that man is able to grasp. Of course, Yogananda can say these things if he chooses, but to claim that the bible teaches this is absurd.
>> Yogis when they are one in Christ consciousness, they can hear the sound that was in the beginning with God.
There is no Christ-consciousness in Christianity. There is no sound that was in the beginning. The word translated "word" is logos. The Greek term logos speaks of the concept behind a symbol. It is not a sound that was God and was with God, but the perfection of perfections that is Himself. In a word, the Word is Jesus himself.
So Yogananda is free to try to make up his own religion using the bible, but he looks pretty silly to folks that actually know the bible. And calling any of his teachings Christian is absurd. Attempting to reinterpret the bible to make it fit his own religion is as bogus as a Christian trying to explain to Buddhists that they completely misunderstand their sacred writings, which are actually the teachings of Brrth'thchtk'jzjzt of Venus :-).
*
Re: Jesus in India, can I sell anyone a book about Jesus' adventures in America after His ressurection? Oh, I forgot, the Mormons already did that. Too bad :-).
How about "Jesus and the Pirates of Mars," or "Jesus defeats the Molemen, Constructs the Pyramids, and Saves the earth from a Comet"? Wonderful book titles. For FICTION :-). And that is what we call narritive writing that has absolutely no basis in fact. Like the obviously false (accurding to Christian theology) assertion that Jesus trucked off to India.
*
Zoebird :-)
Unfortunately, you have been misinformed about the exclusivity of the Church. Ever since God gave the Law to Moses, there has been no doubt as to the exclusivity of the truth claims of Christianity. "Before Abraham was, I AM!" is Jesus' shocking and unmistakable claim to be God Incarnate. Not _a_ god, or someone who through great effort became one with God, or any Hindu or Buddhist concept, but God Himself.
"I AM the way, the truth, and the life; no man comes to the Father except by/through me." Here Jesus combines His God-claim with the reminder that it is not His doctrine that saves, or some secret knowledge, or some accomplishment, trial, or discipline that saves - it is Jesus Himself who saves; who is THE way (not a way), THE truth (not a truth) and THE life - eternal life - the zoe that you take as your UID.
By the way, what are you calling neo-fundamentalism? Fundamentalism is defined as adherence to a basic set of fundamental tenets. So what is the technical definition of neo-fundamentalism? Or is it just a dehumanizing term for a group that you are not fond of??
And to keep you from being led astray by a Presbyterian, you should ask your catechist about these matters, and find out if the Church teaches that Zen and Buddhism is to be embraced by Christians :-).
*
Isha :-)
It seems that you have been misinformed. The writing of the church fathers and the decrees of the early Councils are online. You are welcome to try to find this reincarnation doctrine in them & educate me.
But the whole of biblical teaching on this point is summed up in the verse: "man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment," so you are going to have a difficult time of it...
Bay Guy :-)
Good to read you voice again!! Grace to you :-).
| |
| | |
| elson:
when i read/translate 'i am the way, the truth, and the life. . .' it says to me 'the path that i live, the person thta i am, the way that i am--this is the way, the truth, and the life.' also, using the concept "I AM is the way, the truth and the life" refers to the ultimate godhead--not to the individuated person of jesus. so, there are two 'orthodox' arguments that came through the bishop and canon lawyer with whom i studied for 4 years while learning to translate the bible from greek as well as other early church documents from greek and latin. There are other, arguments, btw, and i gave references to books from a well-regarded catholic monk, Thomas Merton, who wrote on the topic of buddhism and christianity--a work called Zen and Christianity--which is worth a read.
it is also important to note that catholicism, and most orthodox christian churches, have not come down against practicing yoga. There may be factions within these churches that do--but none of them have officially to date. There are other churches who have, from the highest places in their leadership, come down against yoga, buddhism, and any other church other than theirs. Orthodox christianity hasn't done this, and in fact has supported the practice of yoga within and through their churches--as i wrote before--i've taught there by invitation.
similarly, the Church recognizes the ecumincal elements or ideology that most religions are refering to the same thing in different ways, because they arise out of different contexts. In this way, the Church is 'not exclusive.' although catholicism says that it is the 'best' way--and of course any religion is going to claim this.
Also, Krishna, btw, made the same claim. He was God incarnate. So was Rama. So was Buddha. All of them, in hinduism, were considered "god incarnate." i have no problem with this similarity--and in fact it may be where the idea came from, since the term Christian, comes from the greek X which was brought back from the region that wuld become india by alexander the great--thus bringing in the concept of incarnate gods that greek and roman leaders used for centuries before Christ. And, a label given to christ.
To me, this linquistic nuance links Christ and Krishna in a fascinating manner.
and i feel that i defined fundamentalism pretty well, contextually.
Edited by zoebird 2005-07-31 10:14 AM
| |
| | |
| *Fifi* - 2005-07-25 3:00 PM Echo, Looks like Amazon has the book "Jesus Lived in India: His Life Before and After the Crucifixion" by Holger Kerston starting around $22.00. If you plug that title into Amazon they give you additional, similar titles. I'm inspired to see if my local library has any copies. One never knows.... Thanks, Fifi - I'll check it out! | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 8442
| zoebird and elson - I love reading these conversations. I was not raised in a very "church-y" home although I did go to Sunday School and a few other kid things so my background is very slim (although better than DH, who gets all his theology from Andrew Lloyd Webber musicals!). So it is illuminating and educational to be able to take some of this in by reading here.
I think the term "neo-fundamentalists" is clear and descriptive without being derogatory. We all know who we are talking about when using this term. Perhaps the prefix "neo" is the problem for you, elson? I am trying to figure out what the issue with that title is for you. | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State |
Actually, I'm with Elson on the "neo" prefix. Fundamentalists have been around for
a very very long time...longer than many of those stuffy sects that style themselves
with "ancient tradition". What exactly is the difference between a neofundamentalist
and the older ones? | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 8442
| I was going to say that I think the "neo" prefix means "slightly crazier" but I am trying to be a nice, non-judgemental Canadian here....so I won't say that. | |
| | |
| neo simply means 'new.' and what i mean by 'new' refers to the 'new' ways in which their looking at and interpreting scripture.
this differentiates the term from "fundamentalists" in general--which has multiple uses. One use is the broad use that elson mentions. Another use is the use that refers to extremists in regards to various interpretations of a given scripture or idea (for example, the concept of a 'islamic fundamentalist' or 'hindu fundamentalists'). These two terms can be used to refer to any group in time--and even just smaller groups within groups.
'neo-fundamentalist christians' refers to those christians whose ideologies started and developed from certain american churches who started to schism and redevelope or regroup in the late 1800s and still do so to this day. many of these churches have very little understanding of scriptural or historical context--as evidenced by their theology and application--and rely solely on specific interpretations and ideas regarding scriptures. Many of us consider "conservative christians" and those individuals related politically and socially (such as the extreme right to life groups who bomb ob/gyn clinics and kill doctors) who rely on their interpretation of scripture to justify their violent actions.
in this light, it may be appropriate to consider the groups such as al quaeda (sp?) as neo-fundamentalist islamic groups--and those who are related in ideology and interpretation--while the mainstream of islam greatly disagrees with these groups in their interpretations and applictions of scriptures, and specifically disclaims the violent actions that these groups take.
again, neo simply refers to 'new' as opposed to 'older' or 'other' fundamentalist groups who have either died away, become mainstream, or assimilated into the larger culture from which they were derrived. usually, 'neo-fundamentalist' refers to those groups who are less than 100 years of age and, even though claiming a direct lineage, have no real evidence of such a lineage nor do they have an accurate understanding of historical religious practices that they say they have adopted or are truly living. As an example from the yoga world, some people consider the 'international society of krishna consciousness' to be a 'neofundamentalist hindu group'--even though they are known to be nonviolent. | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State |
Fundamentalist Christians have been around for centuries, in one form or another, including
those who came to the US in the 1600's. I'm not sure that there's anything distinctive
about those from after 1800 (as you cite) relative to those who were fundamentalists
in, say, 1700, other than the fact that they were in nominally different sects that those
that might self-identify that way today. Can you be more specific?
| |
| | |
| I have to say one of the most truthful things I've ever heard someone say is that the sole purpose of organized religion is to prevent the individual from having a direct experience with God. Fundamentalist Christians, Fundamentalist Muslims, and any other religious extremist groups epitomize this statement. Anything that keeps you from experiencing and developing your own spirit and your own personal relationship with God is not anything you should want to be a part of. Any religion that maintains it's grip on you through fear of separation from God or "going to hell" is the same as an abusive, predatory relationship that you stay in out of fear. Of course these "religions" are afraid of yoga or anything that allows an individual to meet their creator on their own terms and in the light of their own living spirit. | |
| | |
| bay guy:
most noteably--the bible that they use and when it was developed and what interpretations, myths and other ideas are related to when this text came about, why, and who used it.
individuals in the 1700s and 1600s who were fundamentalists had the same text as the rest of christiandom, including a closer relationship to orthodox theology. There are fundamentalist orthodox individuals, certainly, a smaller group within a group who tend to take a more 'fundamental' and often considered 'extreme' view of the tradition and scripture. For example, many people consider benedictine ideologies to be 'strict' or 'fundamentalist.' yet, they are now part of the landscape of christian (catholic) ideology. Those who were schismatic from western orthodoxy, tended to have stronger arguments for their schismatic ideologies, taking a stronger form in lineage (ie, lutherans were originalyl considered schismatic scritural fundamentalists, but have become an element of 'mainstream' and 'orthodox' christianity--and always were because of their lineage).
the bible, and the american perspective of the bible, changed with the new jerusalem printing which came in the late 1800s--and this is the governing bible of the neofundamentalists churches of today. An interesting text on the matter: Stealing Jesus. | |
| | |
| Oy vey! The Religious Wars!
I'd like to read "Stealing Jesus".
I agree with Miabella. All fundamentalists are icky. I had a Chinese professor who was a fundamental Daoist. You either believed in Daoism or you were wrong in his world. Really weird since that's the opposite of Daoism.
I think people get hypnotized by their religions and beliefs and they can't snap out of it.
It gets really embarrassing when Christians get all smug about their beliefs. It makes me not want to admit I am Christian b/c I don't want to be associated with them. Thus, the smug are cutting off their own lifeline.
| |
| | |
| Zoebird:
>> when i read/translate 'i am the way, the truth, and the life. . .' it says to me 'the path that i live, the person thta i am, the way that i am--this is the way, the truth, and the life.' also, using the concept "I AM is the way, the truth and the life" refers to the ultimate godhead--not to the individuated person of jesus. so, there are two 'orthodox' arguments that came through the bishop and canon lawyer with whom i studied for 4 years while learning to translate the bible from greek as well as other early church documents from greek and latin. There are other, arguments, btw, and i gave references to books from a well-regarded catholic monk, Thomas Merton, who wrote on the topic of buddhism and christianity--a work called Zen and Christianity--which is worth a read.
DE> How remarkable incorrect both of these interpretations are, in both the Catholic and Protestant churches. But very consistent, of course. You do not believe that Jesus is God. Thus "I AM the way, the Truth, and the Life; no man come to the Father except by/through me" does not mean that The Way means that we have to come to the Father through the agency of the Son, The Truth does not mean that Jesus is the Logos, and The Light does not mean that Jesus is the Light of the world. And even though Jesus clearly says I AM, it does not refer to His divinity. Yeah.
DE> You are not in full communion with the Roman Church if you hold these beilefs, which are contrary to the teaching of the Magisterium, as documented in the Catechism, affirmed by many Councils, and discussed in various Papal letters.
>> it is also important to note that catholicism, and most orthodox christian churches, have not come down against practicing yoga. There may be factions within these churches that do--but none of them have officially to date.
DE> Yeah. You might want to refer to "JESUS CHRIST, THE BEARER OF THE WATER OF LIFE, A Christian reflection on the New Age", http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/interelg/documents/rc_pc_interelg_doc_20030203_new-age_en.html
similarly, the Church recognizes the ecumincal elements or ideology that most religions are refering to the same thing in different ways, because they arise out of different contexts. In this way, the Church is 'not exclusive.' although catholicism says that it is the 'best' way--and of course any religion is going to claim this.
DE> Again, see above. The critical distinction is that the conscience of any person who has heard the gospel, is bound by the gospel, and can therefore no claim invincible ignorance of Jesus.
Also, Krishna, btw, made the same claim. He was God incarnate. So was Rama. So was Buddha. All of them, in hinduism, were considered "god incarnate." i have no problem with this similarity--and in fact it may be where the idea came from, since the term Christian, comes from the greek X which was brought back from the region that wuld become india by alexander the great--thus bringing in the concept of incarnate gods that greek and roman leaders used for centuries before Christ. And, a label given to christ.
DE> Again, these ideas are your own, and have nothing to do with Christianity.
To me, this linquistic nuance links Christ and Krishna in a fascinating manner.
and i feel that i defined fundamentalism pretty well, contextually.
DE> This is not a matter of nuance, but identity. In Christianity, and view or understanding or conception of God that is not the Gospel, is not God. It's the whole "there is only one name given among men by which a man must be saved" thing. There is no room in Christianity for Buddha or Rama or Zeus or Bob, because they are not YHWH.
Dale | |
| | |
| elson:
you are actually incorrect on both parts. 1. i do believe that Jesus is God. Just as I believe that Krishna is God. Just as I believe that God is within me--as it says in John 1. Christ teaches us that the Kingdom of Heaven is at Hand--within. And that God is within Us. THat we, like Jesus, need only recognize this.
2. you are incorrect about these ideas being part of christian/catholic belief or teaching. They aren't just 'my ideas.' these ideologies are part of catholic teaching, and the zen catholic movement--which started in the 1940s--was determined to be a movement within the church that is acceptable and appropriate, as per the encyclical of 1997, which also stated that the charismatic catholic movement, among others, were also a part of the catholic church--appropriate interpretations, permetations, and applications of catholic doctrine and in unity with catholic dogma.
Similarly, it might be noted that the Religious Society of Friends--in all of it's three primary types or varients--is also in line with this line of thinking, as are Unitarian Universalists--perhaps considered small groups of protestants--but the Quakers, at least, have a long and direct lineage from the 1600s and are a response to ritualism in favor of mysticism. I have also found similar movements and interepretations amoung most orthodox or traditional protestant churches as well as other religious movements--many of which are not christian (ie, judaism, islam, etc).
Edited by zoebird 2005-08-04 7:21 AM
| |
| | |
| also, catholicism has no problem with people coming up with their own ideas, understandings, and interpretations and applications of their teachings. My long education and practice of catholicism has taught me that only the dogmatic elements--of which there are very few--are required to be considered a catholic. this is what allows for the spiritual growth of the church. All doctrinal elements are 'a matter of conscience' and to be dealt within the individual's relationship with God and through the process of confession as well as other church-related and sacrimental activities.
since i still participate in confession with the same man with whom i studied the scriptures and early church debates and teachings, i think i have a good idea as to whether or not 'my ideas' (which are shared by many within the catholic church) are "acceptable" and whether or not i would be included or considered a catholic. if a person is too schismatic, then generally they are not offered the sacriments--and the confessor has the right to withhold the eucharist if he feels that the individual is not in a place to recieve it. Since my priest of 18 years has yet to do this--nor deny any sacriment including reconcilliation--i think that i have a clear indication of where i stand within the church. I'm certainly not going to take your word or interpretation for it.
similarly, i didn't find anything in that document that refutes or underminds my position--personally and within the context of eccuminicalism. i do not deny the gospel, nor the person of christ, nor his symbology or other cultural functions, nor his truth and understanding. in order to be a person who 'denies' christ, you have to actively disengage from the person of christ. In most ways, i am 'devoutly christian' as it is my primary practice. To recognize the eccuminical nature or ideology of the church, to engage and learn from that policy through direct participation and interaction with other religious groups and ideas is considered entirely appropriate. It is not against the dogma--therefore one can remain catholic--and it is only against certain doctrines, which are a matter of conscience. Some catholics are more 'traditional' or 'fundamentalist' than others--prefering a benedicting approach, whereas i prefer a more jesuit of franciscan approach, which is often considered 'very liberal.'
considering that my priest, now a monsignor and still a cannon lawyer, is well aware of and has encouraged my practice of and participation in the religious services of both other christian and non-christian religious communities alike, and since he specificially encouraged my association with zen buddhism and certainly acknowledged my participation in vedic studies via yoga (i wouldn't say that i practice hinduism or vedanta, specificially, though i do reflect on their scriptures in order to inform my conscience, to inform my christian practice which is my primary language), i certainly think that his authority--over some guy on the internet--is a much better indication of my position within catholicism, and whether or not i 'qualify' as a catholic and/or a christian.
were i to be too problematic, then certainly he would have indicated so at some point within the last 18 years, since the first four of those years i saw him 4-5 times a week, and since then have spoken with him 1-2 times a week. it certainly stands to reason, doesn't it?
| |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | Not too long ago, I posted an AP article describing Cardinal Ratz--'s negative comments
about yoga in this forum. He's now the Pope --- I don't know the rules of Catholicism in
any detail, but I've always had the impression that the Pope's opinion came pretty
close to defining the rules?
Found it... so here it is again... (yes, it bugs me)....
~~~~~~~
The below apparently dates from 1989....
Vatican Warns About Zen, Yoga VATICAN CITY (AP) - The Vatican Thursday cautioned Roman Catholics that Eastern meditation practices such as Zen and yoga can ``degenerate into a cult of the body'' that debases Christian prayer. ``The love of God, the sole object of Christian contemplation, is a reality which cannot be `mastered' by any method or technique,'' said a document issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The document, approved by Pope John Paul II and addressed to bishops, said attempts to combine Christian meditation with Eastern techniques were fraught with danger although they can have positive uses. The 23-page document, signed by the West German congregation head Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, was believed the first time the Vatican sought to respond to the pull of Eastern religious practices. Ratzinger told a news conference that the document was not condemning Eastern meditation practices, but was elaborating on guidelines for proper Christian prayer. By Eastern methods, the document said, it was referring to practices inspired by Hinduism and Buddhism such as Zen, Transcendental Meditation and yoga, which [may] involve prescribed postures and controlled breathing. Some Christians, ``caught up in the movement toward openness and exchanges between various religions and cultures, are of the opinion that their prayer has much to gain from these methods,'' the document said. But, it said, such practices ``can degenerate into a cult of the body and can lead surreptitiously to considering all bodily sensations as spiritual experiences.'' The document defined Christian prayer as a ``personal, intimate and profound dialogue between man and God.'' Such prayer ``flees from impersonal techniques or from concentrating on oneself, which can create a kind of rut, imprisoning the person praying in a spiritual privatism.'' Attempts to combine Christian and non-Christian mediation are ``not free from dangers and errors,'' the document said. It expressed particular concern over misconceptions about body postures in meditation. ``Some physical exercises automatically produce a feeling of quiet and relaxation, pleasing sensations, perhaps even phenomena of light and of warmth, which resemble spiritual well-being. To take such feelings for the authentic consolations of the Holy Spirit would be a totally erroneous way of conceiving the spiritual life. ``Giving them a symbolic significance typical of the mystical experience, when the moral condition of the person concerned does not correspond to such an experience, would represent a kind of mental schizophrenia which could also lead to psychic disturbance and, at times, to moral deviations.'' The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is the Vatican's watchdog body for doctrinal orthodoxy. The document did not name any particular individuals, groups or religious movements that have strayed in the use of Eastern meditation practices but the congregation often acts in response to complaints. AP-NY-12-14-89 0937EST (C) Copyright 1989, Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State |
I guess this also bears on Zen Catholicism (sorry, I'm rushing to read to my kids),
but I wonder whether Ratz- also had opinions on Thomas Merton.
| |
| | |
| Yuck. That article makes me want to hurl. I forgot, the Vatican owns God. In fact, we can no longer use the word "God" because it has been Trademarked by the Vatican. | |
| | |
| >> you are actually incorrect on both parts. 1. i do believe that Jesus is God. Just as I believe that Krishna is God.
DE> And you settle the incompatibilities between their teachings by reinterpreting the bible in such a way as to make it say what you want it to say. This has been the way of theological error ever since satan misquoted God to Eve in the garden.
DE> Your belief that Krishna is God is unacceptable for Catholics. Catechism para 2112
Just as I believe that God is within me--as it says in John 1. Christ teaches us that the Kingdom of Heaven is at Hand--within. And that God is within Us. THat we, like Jesus, need only recognize this.
DE> And I suppose when we recognize this, that we will become God? Perhaps Jesus was just an enlightened man, instead of the unique Son of God, and the rest of us can become as much God as Jesus, if we just apply ourselves. No.
*
The Zen Catholic Movement --- ahhhhh, now I get it. None of these folks are Catholic; they are all heretical sects that are NOT in full communion with the Church. That explains alot. So your opinions are not representative of more than a handful of Religious.
Which encyclical of 1997 are you referencing? I have not found one that said anything positive about Catholics practicing or embracing Zen Buddhism.
Quakers do not accept Zen Buddhism as part of their religion.
The UUs are not Christian, so their views do not bear on this discussion.
Islam and Judiasm enthusiastically reject Zen Buddhism as part of their religions. | |
| | |
| elson:
you're entirely welcome to your opinion on the matter, but the group is accepted by the church and many notable priests, monks, and nuns are members of the movement and write on it frequently.
a large part of the reading, contemplation, and application of the scriptures is an aspect of personal interpretation--regardless of one's religion. another aspect is the interplay between traditional or orthodox teachings and how that colors or impacts personal interpretation. because of my extensive study, i feel firmly grounded in both my catholicism and my christianity.
most of the catechism is doctrine. i discussed the nature of doctrine in the above paragraphs.
if you have any more questions, i suggest you take it up with Thomas Merton (in his books Zen and Christianity, for example)--he was a ciscerstian monk--or with Father James Hand, Jesuit priest--who write extensively on this topic. | |
| | |
| elson - 2005-08-05 5:32 AM
*
The Zen Catholic Movement --- ahhhhh, now I get it. None of these folks are Catholic; they are all heretical sects that are NOT in full communion with the Church. That explains alot. So your opinions are not representative of more than a handful of Religious.
Elson - can you please elaborate on the above quote. Are you saying Catholics practicing Zen Meditation are heretics?
Just out of curiosity, what is your faith? Perhaps you've already posted that and I missed it. I have to tell you, I appreciate your research and identify with most of your postings. Thanks
| |
| | |
| Hello Fifi :-)
Sorry - Zoebird & I got off on a sidebar conversation about a complicated subject. She claims to speak for Christiality, but her beliefs are not consistent with the beliefs of the Catholic church, or any other major group of Christians, so QED, her beliefs are not representative of Christianity.
>> Are you saying Catholics practicing Zen Meditation are heretics?
Not necessarily. We have to get much more detailed than "Zen meditation." :-). Now let me say that I am not an expert on Zen meditation, so I can't speak to the significant details of Zen practice.
Let me clarify "heretic." The Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church is an outline of Catholic doctrine, which is what defines Catholicism. The Catechism is composed of De Fide statements and other statements. The De Fide statements must be believed by the Catholic for that person to be in full Communion with the RCC. Catholics who disagree with the De Fides are in error. Catholics who knowingly teach error are known as heretics.
I can't say that everything in Zen is error. Only those parts of Zen that contradict the De Fides are in error. Whether or not a certain practice is in error is sometimes open to interpretation. It doesn't matter if the practice is Zen or yoga or aerobics or swimming - it is the individual elements that must be analysed.
To try to sum up :-), yoga asana and pranayama are not generally an issue; any chanting or singing that recognizes some other being than YHWH as God is a problem. My arguement with Zoegirl centers on the exclusive diety of YHWH. Any religion or philosophy that denies that YHWH (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit) is God, and that only YHWH is God, is incompatible with Christianity.
Any religion or philosophy that teaches a different method of salvation than that taught in the bible & in the De Fides is in error.
If that doesn't answer the question, let me know!
My faith comes from Adam&Eve, who God created. It kept Noah steadfast as he worked for 120 years to build the Ark. It flows in the blood of Abraham, who God called out of Ur of the Chaldeans to become a great race. It defined the lives of Isaiac & Jacob. It upheld the righteousness of Joseph, who saved Egypt from a great famine. It gave the courage that a desert shepherd named Moses needed to repeatedly confront a hostile Phaoroh who did not know joseph. It parted the sea and brought the fire of Heaven down.
It is the faith of Jesus, called the Christ, and it allowed Him to bear the punishment for the sins of all of those who would be saved. It is the faith of the Apostles and the Prophets, and it was the faith of the catholic church for several hundred years after the death of Jesus. It is the faith of Martin Luthor and John Calvin and the other Reformers. Today, it is the faith of most of the Protestants in the world.
My particular church is Presbyterian (PCA).
My studies run the gamut of the Christian experience; Catholicism, the Marian Cult, various Protestant flavors; Pentecostal, Charismatic, Reformed. I am a student of systematic theology, which seeks to understand the full council of God on the subjects that He has addressed.
I am a student of philosophy. I talk/type too much :-).
I'm not here to try to convince any nonChristians to become Christians, because my theology holds that only God can change a person's heart and mind, not me. I wish more people in more religions understood that!
I like an interesting discussion of things religious and philosophical, and I will correct Christians about their faith when they stray from sound doctrine.
Cheers.............Dale
| |
| | |
| The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is the Vatican's watchdog body for doctrinal orthodoxy.
Actually the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has another name that more people are familiar with. Oddly enough they've changed from "The Inquisition", to this more respectable title. Doesn't appear that the mission has changed any. Frankly I find it very disturbing that the new pope was once a member of an organization that is historically infamous for it's bloody atrocities against humanity. Frankly, I'd take whatever they advised me not to do, and do it.
| |
| | |
| Dale:
actually, it's not your responsibility to correct christians if they stray out of doctrine, because quite frankly you don't know enough about the individual christian's interior life and whether or not or how far they do stray out of doctrine.
that being said, i think it's important to note that i never said that i spoke for the whole of christianity or of catholicism or that all christians and catholics believed as i do or practice as i do. in fact, i simply stated that these ideas that are within other religions also exist within christianity--and in that way there is shared belief. Not all christians are fundamentalist or afraid of zen meditation, yoga or pranayama--as you mention. This was also my statement.
the woman written about in the article stated that practicing yoga was dangerous because of it's connection with eastern religions and faith practices (as well as philosophy and cultural ideology). She said that christians shouldn't practice yoga in order to remain a christian. In some ways, many of your statements were similar--and i believe both arrogant and errant.
i have no need for "Dale on the internet" to correct me in my catholicism. As i said, the ideas that i've written about here, that i say exist in orthodox (as compared to neofundamental) christianity, are in fact present in modern orthodox christianity--as in the Zen Catholic movement. This movement is 'approved' or appropriate by the vatican. My confessor--who is a catholic cannon lawyer (perhaps you keep missing that i say so)--has not made mention that my ideas or my understanding of the breadth of beliefs and practices within catholicism which includes individuals in the zen catholic movement and may extend (though doesn't currently) to the 'other extreme' of 'traditional catholics' (those such as Mel Gibson). To teach that these beliefs exist and are practiced and approved is certainly not a heretical statement.
As to the catechism, i completely agree with your interpretation, which was basicly what i said anyway. there are dogmatic elements--with which i agree, which keeps me from being schismatic--and then there are doctrinal elements--many of which i agree with, and many others that i don't agree with or agree with that particular logic or application. Since the faith is a living faith, since doctrines change over time, i think this is an appropriate, healthy perspective of individual and group faith development.
Since my priest of 18 years is well aware of my interior religious life, i think that you, as i do, should leave it to him to decide if i am a heretic. Since he has yet to mention such a thing, or withhold the sacriments, i tend to think that I am not a heretic, regardless of what "Dale from the internet" has to say on the matter.
better? | |
| | |
| Hey Dale,
Thanks for your response. I hope this doesn't get too personal or like I'm making this thread all about me but I have another question for you. Maybe I should just PM you or something...
Anyway, I've been thinking a lot about God and Christianity lately and I'm wondering if "I'm getting it". So, is it safe to say that a deep belief in the miraculous power of God can conquer anything? I've had experiences where I know God is changing the course of a situation or an event - always for a positive outcome beyond my belief. I'm beginning to think I never need to worry about anything ever again. Is this too simplistic?
Also, I don't buy that the Vatican speaks for God. I've seen children who are more "tuned in". They are closer to the "source" than some old, disconnected-from-reality archbishop.
Please comment & thank you ~ Fifi | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | I have a question for you guys?? Why is it that so many Christians and Catholics..and others refer to God as something outside of themselves?? This is the major conflict that I have with Christianity and Catholism.
Fifi, that concept of never having to worry about anything again is great! But there is a catch to that...in order to truly live from that kind of place, you must have sincere devotion, trust in the universe...another words you can't be wishy washy with your thoughts and actions, its kind of like a dance, and if you veer off the course, well, all that will vanish and you will go back into fear and worry. This is where I like the Buddhist and Hindu philosophy of the middle way. Not too high and not too low. Same principal applies to fear and worry...Not too tight and not too loose either. The world is not perfect and we must learn how to master all of it, the good, the bad, the ugly - every single thing. God is within you, not outside, he's not that little man that sits in the sky judging whether we are good or bad. We all have Buddha nature inside us and its up to us whether or not we want to tap into that source, or continue with the struggle of seeking it outside of ourselves. As Jesus taught, we should be in the world and not OF the world. Knowing this and truly living from that truth is liberating. When I think of the words fear and worry, I think of attachment right behind it. If there were no attachments, it would be easier to access God. | |
| | |
| Cyndi:
that, i do not know. The bible clearly states that God is within us. In John Chapt 1, it clearly says that the Light that lights every person--and refers that to the Logos (Word) that was with God from the beginning.
as a catholic and thereby a christian, i was taught that God resides in the hearts of all people (and in particular, christ resides in the hearts of all christians). Thereby, God is both imminently present and yet transcendental as well. Since i was taught this in catholicism and christianity, i do not know why other christians, catholics, and those like yourself who hear their language, seem to think otherwise.
it's partly how i see so much connection with other faith traditions. The ipsa upanishad says "Bright is the Self (God), Imminent and Transcendent!" the first time i read this, i think i popped! i see so much commonality between the ideas and philosophies of hinduism, buddhism, jainism, sikhism, judaism, christianity, islam--etc etc--that i just about pop with excitement. | |
| | |
| fifi:
i agree with many of your points, and i think that they deserve some attention. children have an innate sense of ultimate reality. it is, as cyndi said, because they are more 'in' the world than 'of' the world. the world is a wonder to them, an joy, and they live from the spirit because of their innocence and their connection to themselves.
some children, through certain socialization structures, though, do not live from this place. too young, they are robbed of their spirit and forced into a life of rules and consequences that may squash their individuality. This happens all over the world, in any number of ways (including child abuse), regardless of religion. In this case, it's generally people and pockets of society behaving badly from a place of deep suffering and loss of spirit.
Adults have the same capacity as children have, which of course christ mentioned. he said that if you are to come to the kingdom of heaven (which is as hand) then you must come to it *as* a little child. I marked the 'as' for a reason, because it refers to the mindset of the child, not so much the 'childishness' or the age--but that open, curious, innocent mind.
as adults, many of us have lost our feeling for that light within--God within--which guides us (also or often called the holy spirit, which is the driving force behind the joy of pentecost; sometimes as refered to christ within; and sometimes simply refered to as God within---in christiantity at least) to find ways out of those rules, regulations, ideas and other things that bind us 'Of the world" instead of simply "in the world." By connecting to this innocent, divine within, we come to the kingdom of heaven as little children (of God).
truthfully, whether one is an ancient archbishop who seems out of touch (he may not be, he may just be old, of another time, and deeply rooted in his own interior life--as i know many whom people consider harsh and out of touch who are deeply loving, struggling to maintain that balance of 'in the world and not of it' as christ said, the way is narrow, and that middle way is narrow) or just your average person struggling to get through a day, the divine within is a constant companion and guide--if only we have ears to hear.
this is why i *love* the process of contemplative prayer so much. it is *very* hard work, but i love it. i have loved it since i first started on contemplative prayer at age 11. i was taught how to meditate then. how to then turn to the scriptures and read them, and then with a prayerful, focused mind, turn to the divine within to guide my learning on the verse (following Thomas Merton's New Seeds of Contemplation text). It is such a beautiful process of consistantly turning to the divine within, that you build a deep relationship with that Divine and begin to move from that space beyond the time and space of contemplative prayer.
it is a great blessing. definately a practice worth looking into! | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | Well, Zoebird, the church may say that *some* of the time, but they don't live or act out accordingly. That is my experience in the church, being brought up as a Baptist and marrying a Catholic later in life. You cannot compare this type philosophy with Buddhism with Christianity and certainly not Hinduism...that I do know because my husband is Hindu and it is not the same and culturally speaking, Christianity and Catholism has no place in Hinduism. In fact, I cringe when I hear how the Christians and their missionaries go to other countries trying to convert Hindu's and the natives of South America...its BS!! I think India had them thrown out not too long ago, and they should be thrown out! | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | zoebird - 2005-08-08 10:26 AM
i agree with many of your points, and i think that they deserve some attention. children have an innate sense of ultimate reality. it is, as cyndi said, because they are more 'in' the world than 'of' the world. the world is a wonder to them, an joy, and they live from the spirit because of their innocence and their connection to themselves.
Wait a minute..that is not what Cyndi said, nor what Jesus said. Jesus taught that we should Live in the world, but NOT of the world. Which meant that we are not to get attached to, and be involved with worldy things. Children are not aware of this ultimate reality, they are just in a pure state of being simply because they are children and their minds are ready for learning. It is up to the parents & teachers to teach and enforce this - and the children must accept this as their truth as well, otherwise, children will grow up and be IN the world. Most adults cannot even grasp this concept, so how can it be taught?? Sorry folks, this is barely happening in today's world. I'm speaking from a homeschool perceptive here and is why I do it.
Edited by Cyndi 2005-08-08 10:37 AM
| |
| | |
| cyndi:
that is what i said. Children are in the world, and not of the world. Christ said that we are to be in the world, but not of the world. I agree, it's about attachment. I read the paragraph that you quoted twice, and that's what i said.
also, to me, being in a simple, pure state of being is being in ultimate reality. buddha was in a simple, pure state of being. christ taught that we must approach the kingdom of god as little children, with a simple, pure state of being open for learning. this is the state of openness that is deeply present in and aware of ultimate reality (which is another term for God that i use, among others) such that they can be in the world but not of the world. Meaning, fully present here, but nonattached.
it's amazing how christianity and buddhism/vedanta/hinduism overlap.
(i hope to homeschool too.)
Edited by zoebird 2005-08-08 10:45 AM
| |
| | |
| you know what, i think the teaching of in the world and not of it came from paul--to be specific. divinely inspired, of course, but not a direct teaching from christ. i'm going to look it up for certain. | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | zoebird - 2005-08-08 10:47 AM
you know what, i think the teaching of in the world and not of it came from paul--to be specific. divinely inspired, of course, but not a direct teaching from christ. i'm going to look it up for certain.
What difference does it make who said what?? Its a universal truth and doesn't matter. Besides, Christ transmitted it to Paul, therefore it came from Christ!!!!
All Christianity and Catholism is, are diluted versions of Hinduism and Buddhism - they do not overlap. They left out the important facts so that they could control their flocks...which is why the world is so screwed up right now! | |
| | |
| i completely disagree regarding your assertion of christianity as compared to eastern traditions. your attitude about christianity/catholicism is of the same ilk as the woman who is providing a 'christian alternative' to yoga because of the 'dangers' of yoga--you're disparaging christianity as she is disparaging the tradition of yoga. i find it really sad.
i think it's important to note the author or origin of it within it's context. i agree that it's a universal truth--and that many people other than christian or jewish or muslim have said the statement. but in it's context in the scripture, the origin is important. I looked it up and it is paul, specifically, who wrote it. it doesn't change it's importance, it simply is more clear as to it's origin in the christian scriptures.
Edited by zoebird 2005-08-08 12:18 PM
| |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | You think what you like and be sad...but that is not true. If you were to dig a little deeper and go back into the history of mankind, you will see for yourself. I think you are being very naive. Don't compare me to someone else, you don't know me Zoebird, you only think you do from a small amount of typed conversation. Get the facts straight before you start hurling accusations like that girlfriend. | |
| | |
| ok, here are the facts:
this is a direct quote taken from the article that you posted that is claimed by willis:
"From experience I can say that yoga is a dangerous practice for the Christian and leads
seekers away from God rather than to him.
and you wrote:
All Christianity and Catholism is, are diluted versions of Hinduism and Buddhism - they do not overlap. They left out the important facts so that they could control their flocks...which is why the world is so screwed up right now!
YOu are saying that christiantity is basicly not as good as hinduism and buddhism, that they are used as control mechanisms and thereby aren't real or valid faith prctices which cannot lead a person to God and is also entirely responsible for why the world is screwed up.
They are the same sentiment. You can believe whta you want. But those are the facts. Both are a sentiment of xenophobia and exclusivity.
I have studied the facts regardign the origins of christianity, the crossovers and influences of eastern ideas over the religion (did you not even read my post about how the term christ originates in the term krishna?). I'm not as naive as you might think. I'm also not uneducated.
i also don't have the ego to tell someone that their spirituality is wrong, that it leads them and others away from God, that it leads them away from truth, that it gets facts or ideas wrong, and therefore is responsbile for the world being screwed up.
Edited by zoebird 2005-08-08 12:47 PM
| |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | Zoebird,
This is your perception of my words and you have twisted them to seek some kind of issue with me regarding Christianity, almost as if you are trying to convince me or validate your religion or belief. I am entitled to my opinion, especially when it comes to the Christian vs. Eastern Philosophies, as I too have studied them in depth, I also live and pratice the culture. You do not know what your talking about it.
I NEVER said that someone else's spirituality is wrong, I would be the last person to say that. I did however say that Christianity, Catholism and the events that are happening in the world right now are screwed up, all in the name of God! Just take a good look at our GWB and all his Christian followers. Go read the horror stories about the new pope, he's a creep. As for the outcome of this event, I have no attachments to it and I'm not dwelling in it. But, as an observer, I can certainly see the problems and conflicts. That is not EGO. If you want to view it as such, that would be your problem, not mine. It's not your place to measure my EGO. My EGO is in check thank you very much.
Nor did I say that Hinduism & Buddhism is better than Christianity..I said that Christianity and Catholism were diluted versions of the two and that the leaders of the church left out important facts so that they could control the human race -which is where we are right now...no one is thinking for themselves, they rely on their church, their media, their president, their government to live. Good grief! It's kind of hard to practice yoga wouldn't you think if a person is trained in not being able to think for himself, which is basically about 70% of the human population and getting stronger every day?? No intuitive incentives here, God forbid. Then there are the other few that are seeking the dharma!!
Edited by Cyndi 2005-08-08 1:21 PM
| |
| | |
| i don't see how i'm twisting your words. Your words say that christianity is invalid, particularly as compared to hinduism and buddhism. your words say that christianity is the cause of the problems today.
they do not say that certain christian ideas or groups are problematic and are leading to certain problems within our mordern culture or world. They do not say that GWB is responsible for this or that the new pope is responsible for that.
i say that some christians get it wrong, that some leaders get it wrong, and that some people use god as an excuse. The hindu fundamentalist/extremists in india do no different--and they are just as violent. Yet, i dont' blame hinduism for these problems, simply the extremists. You took a few examples of individuals--who are the minority in christianity (those of GWB's type of christian) and then extract that to the whole of christianity getting it wrong, and causing the world's problems.
one can observe and speak clearly. obviously, you didn't. if you don't believe that christianity is perse invalid, then don't say so. i wasn't twisting your words. i read what you wrote and responded. i'm not upset, angry, or anything else. I find it sad that people hold such ideas that their religion or belief is more valid or important than someone elses. I can certainly see where people let their beliefs go awry--and if i feel so compelled, i'll bring it up. generally speaking, i leave it between the individual and God. It's not my place to chastize or correct someone. But, i find the ideas that Willis holds regarding yoga to be sad. Similarly, i hold your idea of christianity--as you stated it and i quoted it--to be sad.
I certainly don't need my faith practice validated. Every day, someone like you or dale or the woman in the article, or some buddhist or some pagan or whomever else feels the strong need to criticize my practice, to correct me, to chastize me. While i'm willing to read their ideas, hear their complaints regarding my faith practice, and even reflect on them to determine their validity, i have often discovered that i'm doing just fine and i am happy with how i practice and with what i believe. I love to study religion and spirituality--to compare religions and learn from them. This is why i study scriptures from various religions. This is why i spend my time with various religious teachers (mostly hindu and jain, vedanta, buddhist, and catholic). This is why i practice yoga, meditation, contemplative prayer, confession, etc.
i'm happy with where i am. i'm happy to share what i believe with others. I'm happy to let others have their beliefs and share them with me--even those like GWB, with whom i may disagree. but i don't blame the whole religion for one powerful man's decisions. | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 8442
| Cyndi - I think the term "diluted" infers that something is "lesser-than" what it came from. I also find "you don't know what you are talking about" makes people feel they are being attacked.
I think we can all agree that extremism is dangerous but these conversations show how quickly reasonable people trying to have a reasonable discussion can go astray. Can we leave it at that or at least try to keep the conversation on an even keel?
On a lighter note, since GWB is in the thread now, there was an article in our paper this weekend about a man who, as a child, knew Hitler. He said, "When people talk about GWB being like Hitler, I have to disagree. At least Hitler could speak the language." | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | tourist - 2005-08-08 8:26 PM
I think we can all agree that extremism is dangerous but these conversations show how quickly reasonable people trying to have a reasonable discussion can go astray. Can we leave it at that or at least try to keep the conversation on an even keel?
So another words, you want me to speak from a place that has the *tourist* approval?? That would take away from this interesting discussion which we know already has a tendency to bring on the heat, now would it not?? Your idea of an even keel might be different from mine and the others. Also, your idea of going astray could also be different as well. In either case, then that would be a form of control now would it not?? Almost like the church itself and heaven forbid anyone disagree with that, right? Just an observation, in good faith and an on even keel, | |
| | |
| It's definitely funnier to read if everyone continues to use inflammatory language - when you post something that comes across nasty, I just cringe and can't wait to read the angry responses. We're not chatting in person, so a friendly tone and a pat on the shoulder is non-existent here. No amount of smiley faces or LOL's actually soften a phrase like we think it will. I've been guilty of this plenty of times, and I've certainly been hurt and offended by the way people respond at times.
Just heard GWB on the radio today discussing the new NUCULAR energy bill, where he said the word over and over and over. You'd think by this time an advisor would have pulled him aside and said "Sir, the word is NU-CLE-AR." | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | I know what you mean Jean, just like Zoebird saying that she was sad about my comments and comparing me to someone else, made me feel uncomfortable and a little disturbed, but yet at the same time, what I was trying to convey was totally misperceived by someone who put their perceptions into what I was saying, and then of course one thing led to another and I had to say it, "You don't know what your talking about", because in my mind, her perception was wrong about me and she misunderstood my words. Oh good grief Charlie Brown!
Anyway, as far as this topic goes, I really don't want to have this Christian discussion and I'm going to try to refrain from getting too involved, because this is my experience with Christians and Catholics and I really don't like it. I have to deal with this within my family all the time and fortunately for me, I live in the mountains and stay away from this as much as possible. I am not placing myself higher or lower, or better than, I just think that these kinds of misunderstandings are difficult when your dealing with these certain kinds of people. I am truly sorry if I offended anyone by my statements or opinions. Resume - Discuss.
GWB needs to learn how to pronounce Americans...that accent makes me cringe when I hear him, | |
| | |
| I'll probably regret saying this, but... Just for the record - Catholics ARE Christians. I don't know why I keep hearing this lately... but just in this thread alone, several people have said "Christians and Catholics" or "Catholics and Christians". I don't understand the separation there... you might say Catholics are the original Christians. Just FYI! Namaste, Echo | |
| | |
| Maybe it should just be referred to as "Catholics and Protestants" to refer to organized Christian religion. Not sure how non-Christians feel about UNorganized Christian religion - that may be fodder for another thread all together! | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | Empress Echo - 2005-08-08 10:29 PM
I'll probably regret saying this, but... Just for the record - Catholics ARE Christians. I don't know why I keep hearing this lately... but just in this thread alone, several people have said "Christians and Catholics" or "Catholics and Christians". I don't understand the separation there... you might say Catholics are the original Christians. Just FYI! Namaste, Echo
Well, from my part of the country and the way my Daddy *tried his darndest* to raise me as Southern Baptist, that simply ain't true. Catholics in the Southern Baptist eyes are demonic and evil. After being married for just a brief time to a Catholic, they didn't have very high opinions about Baptist, Methodist, Buddhist, Hindu or anyone else for that matter. Oh well, from what you are saying Echo, they must be finally evolving. | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 8442
| Cyndi - you certainly don't need my approval to post what you think. I pointed out a couple of the phrases that I thought might be problematic hoping to keep the conversation going without getting out of hand. As Jean says, it is highly entertaining when things get heated, but "You said this", "No I didn't, I said this," "No, that's wrong, I said this and YOU said that" is not scintillating debate. I can hear it on the playground at work.
The Catholic/Christian things is a good point. I think the southern US is probably the only place taht distinction is made in that way. Weird and sad.
One thing that always comes to my mind during these discussions is that it becomes clear that NO world belief system has got it exactly "right." Every group, sect and schismatic off-shoot has war, poverty, starvation, violence, crime, disagreement, power struggles etc. It sounds like the Tibetans were close to having it all but their focus on the internal and spiritual worlds and isolationist politics led them to be out of touch with reality and the Chinese invaded. It is the kind of thing that makes people like me uncomfortable with organised religions. If reasonable, intelligent, well-read people can disagree so vehemently on little points and semantics, what hope is there for any true meeting of the minds or spirits? If every religion has the US vs. THEM attitude, we will always be separate and never be able to work together to build a world many of the religions claim to want. Sad. | |
| | |
| cyndi:
i'm not sure i had preconceptions about you. I simply read what you said, and then interpreted it. it seemed to me to display the same idea.
i can understand that your original statement didn't say what you meant (which you later clarified as it related to GWB), and perhaps the discomfort of the situation was the reality that at some level you did mean what you said, regardless of GWB.
as i said before, i'm not angry, frustrated or hurt. But, many times you have said things to me that were less than nice--that i have no experience or knowledge (in reference to dog/animal care, particularly), that i'm naive, that i'm not educated about the history of christianity and it's concepts. and that apparently i need validation for my faith practice. And yet still i'm not angry. and if you notice, i've not leveled anything like this against you, in any post.
i simply read your statement and noticed that it reflected the same sentiment that the women in the original article did. if it's not a sentiment that you share, then it's ok to say so. If it is a sentiment you share, you're certainly entitled to share it. I find the sentiment sad--not necessarily you or Willis. And i certainly consider the sentiment "getting 'it' wrong" whatever 'it' is. Truth or perception or something. i dunno. But people change.
Also, as someone pointed out, we don't have tone and inflection. None of my statements were made in an angry way, but i realize that people read into things. Yet, in relation to this, I think it's impolite to speak about me to another party while present, without addressing me on the topic directly as well. Wouldn't that be considered rude in person? Perhaps i'm just socially backward in this sense. I have no problem engaging you--having you tell me that perhaps i'm getting it wrong because of what i'm bringing to the table. I'm sure i do get things wrong because of this--and i'm sure i'm not alone.
----
re: catholics and christians. I lived in the south for many years, and i agree that there is a difference for some people. this is why i use the term, even though catholics are christians, and most demonimations agree with this sentiment. but, i introduced catholicism specificially because i'm catholic--so i was speaking about christianity in general and catholicism in specific, and wanted to denote that there are certain differences in theology or application of theology in the modern world. But, of course, that's vague.
Edited by zoebird 2005-08-09 10:59 AM
| |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | tourist - 2005-08-09 10:39 AM
If every religion has the US vs. THEM attitude, we will always be separate and never be able to work together to build a world many of the religions claim to want. Sad.
Tourist,
It is sad when you present it like that, but in reality the sad part is that Religions do not have an US and THEM attitude, it is the observer that makes that kind of claim and is actually sad. I believe that we have free will on this earth and have choices about what kind of religion we want to practice. If you were involved in a say a certain type of religious practice such as Tibetan Buddhism, you would not have the attitude of US and THEM because that is NOT what the teaching is all about. You would simply be practicing Buddhism with your Sangha and Guru, you would not care about what is going on (and/or being sad) in the outside world, therefore you would be safe and you would be evolving on your spiritual path of choice. The SAD part is that religion has been used to control people, it has been brought into government, it has become political and abused. This I know has been done in the Catholic and Christian Church against the people without their knowing because they have been oppressed if you will in a sublte way.
The Yoga practice does teach the opposite and is the reason it is generally NOT accepted in these types of religion which is what this thread is all about. As long as these religions have this mentality, of course, they will always be seperate. To unite everyone's belief's would be to undo all religions and their belief's...the world is not ready for that concept and people want and need to have their choices and free will to practice what they want. Also, at the same time keeping their cultures in tact is also important as well. Finding the common ground is what is necessary at this point and having respect for others is critical. I do not feel the Catholic or Christian Church respect's me as a Yoga practititioner, if anything I feel like I am the one who is attacked and insulted. Because of who I am, I just overlook it and live in the world to the best of my ability without having too much interaction...that is how I survive. The good news is that we aren't in the dark ages and I can practice freely without interference from the church - period.
Edited by Cyndi 2005-08-09 11:36 AM
| |
| | |
| George W. Bush is like Hitler? Are you F****** kidding? Look, GWB may be a lot of unflattering things but like Hitler - absolutely not. That analogy comes from a sick, twisted, uneducated and uninformed mind. Nevermind what CNN reports. Try reading a higher caliber of journalism like "The Economist" (which, by the way, supported Kerry for Pres).
Want a better analogy - Saddam H. WAS more like Hitler. And the fundamentalist muslim fascist terrorists are likened to Nazis. (which, does not include the kind, loving Muslims that oppose the fundies just as much as I do)
| |
| | |
| fundies of all types are fascists in a sense. hitler was one of those. so, makes sense.
i like the economist. | |
| | |
| Good point Cyndi - it's not the religions that have the US and THEM attitude, it's the people who adopt them. I believe that the religion founded on the teachings of Jesus Christ are that of love, acceptance, kindness, and unity. But it has become so twisted by man that people use the words instead as excuses to hate one another. Christianity is CERTAINLY not the only religion where that has happened.
We can all talk a good game about how we accept and respect all religious traditions, but let's be honest. Those of us who have chosen a particular religion have done so because we think it is the "best" one. Most people would not attend a Christian church while deeply believing that Buddhism is better, nor vice versa (not that there is a First Buddhist Church of Memphis or anything, but you get my drift). We subscribe to certain beliefs because we believe they are right and that they are the best thing for our lives. And because we believe this, we can't help but allow it to color our discussions about religion with others. There's no animosity behind it, not usually. It's just that our own religion has helped us out so much, our natural inclination is to offer the opportunity for others to understand it and have the same beautiful experiences we have had.
On this board, many of us are seekers who have tried many religions, and thus we can better understand our friends who have chosen other paths. That's why most of these discussions are more open-minded and informational than a typical discussion between people who were raised in one way and who never have been exposed to any other traditions, in fact who think other traditions are "dangerous" and "blasphemous."
Think of it in terms of yoga instead of religion. We've all tried lots of different ways to feel good in our bodies, and we've all settled upon the idea that Yoga Is Great. Can you imagine having a discussion about your physical activities without it being colored (at least slightly) by your love of yoga? Would you ever find yourself saying "I realize that in many ways yoga is inferior to weight-lifting, but I was raised doing yoga and that's what I'm sticking with." Of course not. We love yoga, we've felt the wonderful benefits and we just want to share that joy with others.
I think that's what motivates a lot of people when they talk about their religion. It makes me happy, and I want you to be happy, therefore I would like to share this with you. Unfortunately, many times we take this as an affront instead - MY religion makes ME happy, therefore YOU need to understand ME. We become more vested in getting our own point across and stop listening to the intent behind the words.
Man, did that rambling get out of hand or what? I gotta go, I've got a class in 10 minutes!  | |
| | |
| jeans, I think that is very well stated.
Anya | |
| | |
| Hate to break it to you but there's nothing wrong with an "US vs. THEM" mentality if those in the "THEM" group are dangerous, indiscriminate killers.
Also, I was raised a Christian religion but I think Judiasm is THE BEST religion. But, I have no plans of switching religions. | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 8442
| Fifi - the Hitler thing was a bit of a joke. I don't like it when anyone compares someone to Hitler - he was beyond the world's wildest nightmares.
Also - I have a Jewish friend whose kids were much envied in our wasp-y part of the world. Every time a new cool Jewish holiday came up and they got the day off, all their friends wanted to convert!
Cyndi - I agree that the Eastern religions have much more of a live and let live attitude, which is what attracts many of us to them. But even Buddhists have different sects and schools of thought. And there is not perfect peace even in most Buddhist countries so I think the philosophy is great but the practice as a whole hasn't quite worked yet.
>>You would simply be practicing Buddhism with your Sangha and Guru, you would not care about what is going on (and/or being sad) in the outside world,<<
As I was saying - this attitude is what got Tibet invaded. I am very impressed, as are many worldwide, that the Dalai Lama IS paying attention to what is going on in the outside world and IS letting people know that there is a peaceful path. I think this was the karma of Tibet - if they were still isolated and happily living the spiritual life up there in the mountains the message of Buddhism would not have had the chance to be as well known as it is today. | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | This is my favorite quote from the Buddha. Enjoy!
"Do not believe in anything (simply) because you have heard it. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. Do not believe in anything because it is spoken and rumoured by many. Do not believe in anything (simply) because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. (Yep, he really said that ) BUT after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all then accept it and live up to it."
~~Buddha~~
Now Discuss.............. | |
| | |
| I like that Cyndi. Thank You!!!
| |
| | |
| *Fifi* - 2005-08-07 8:48 PM
Anyway, I've been thinking a lot about God and Christianity lately and I'm wondering if "I'm getting it". So, is it safe to say that a deep belief in the miraculous power of God can conquer anything? I've had experiences where I know God is changing the course of a situation or an event - always for a positive outcome beyond my belief. I'm beginning to think I never need to worry about anything ever again. Is this too simplistic?
No, but you have made a huge leap :-). When the bible says that the fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, it is referring partly to God's holiness, and partly to His power. So your wisdom is increasing :-). It is not your belief in God's power that saves you - it is God who saves you :-).
The nice thing about understanding the power of God, is when that understanding is linked with a trusting love toward God. Then you realise that the God whom you trust is in absolute control of the universe. In everything that comes to pass, God is working for the good of those who love Him and are called to be His. If you love God, then you are His, and He is working for your good in all things. Since nothing can stand against the will of God, that means that everything that happens to you will bring forth a positive result in the long run.
The hard part is choosing to remember this when bad things happen to you. But God explains that the trials that we go thru are gifts to us from a loving Father who is training us to be like Him - loving and good - in the most difficult of circumstances.
Also, I don't buy that the Vatican speaks for God. I've seen children who are more "tuned in". They are closer to the "source" than some old, disconnected-from-reality archbishop.
Please comment & thank you ~ Fifi
Indeed, many Christians agree that Rome does not speak for God - we are called Protestants :-). And many people, young and old, priests and laymen, tinkers, tailors, soldiers, and spies, are disconnected from God.
But let me be clear, the Roman Catholic Church was _the_ universal church of God until the Reformation. The amount of wisdom and understanding of God to be found in Her is overwhelming.
I hope that was a useful response - I tend to go on and on.... :-).
Dale | |
| | |
| Cyndi - 2005-08-08 12:00 AM
I have a question for you guys?? Why is it that so many Christians and Catholics..and others refer to God as something outside of themselves?? This is the major conflict that I have with Christianity and Catholism.
Hello Cyndi :-)
The answer from a Christian perspective is that we are not the same as God. Our God has always existed, and always will exist. We, on the other hand, had a beginning - we are created beings. God made us. He made us in His image, but we are not God, and never will be God.
Dale | |
| | |
| I need to correct a concept here....
The Christian religion does have an us/ them aspect, which is particularly important when comparing religions. Zoebird's statements notwithstanding, Christianity claims to have the absolute truth about God, and further claims that only our God is God, and that all other gods are nothing but wood, stone, and myth.
As a belief system, any religion that recognizes any other God than YHWH is completely incompatible with Christianity.
Further, Christianity is based on absolute truth. In fact, our God is Truth itself, and every thing that is true is an image of Him. So we are concerned to get our doctrine right.
This brings up the twin concepts of doctrinal intolerance and civil tolerance. Doctrinal intolerance means that we do not accept doctrinal error. You are welcome to say that we are all part of God, for instance, but Christianity denies that , and will continue to deny that. We are called to speak religious truth as we see it, but to do so in a gentle manner.
In Christian thought, there are two spheres of authority, the religious and the civil. The church is not to take authority in civil matters. That doesn't mean that iChristians are forbidden to take part inpolitics - quite the opposite - but that the church is not to use the civil government to enforce religious law.
In fact, Christians are called to be peacemakers, helpers, and the champions of the weak. In summary, I am bound to point out errors in other religions, while absolutely defending your right to practice that religion in the (legal) manner of your choosing.
Frustrating at times, of course, and too often Christians have not been correctly taught.
Thought you'd like to know..... :-). | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | elson - 2005-08-11 3:32 AM
The answer from a Christian perspective is that we are not the same as God. Our God has always existed, and always will exist. We, on the other hand, had a beginning - we are created beings. God made us. He made us in His image, but we are not God, and never will be God.
Dale
So, what is the point?? What is the goal then?? The Christian perspective, of course. When I read that, it made me cringe. | |
| | |
| Thank you, Dale.
Are you referring to the Catholic Church as female? I like that! How very da Vinci Code.
I agree that "The Church's" wisdom is overhelming. In fact, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the Catholic Church practices magic similar to Kabbalistic magic. The angels, archangels, vibrations, colors, differenet incense for different seasons, etc...
Magic probabaly isn't the right word but the "results" seem magical
(I don't mind you elaborating!) | |
| | |
| church is called the 'bride of christ' and therefore 'she.'
and yes, there are many 'magical'elements to the church (such as transsubstantiation of the eucharist) thta are found in many religions, but not often found in much of protestantism. this is part of the reason why i don't participate in protestant 'communion' services--because the transsubstantiation process isn't there (many don't believe in it, and i do). so, this respects their beliefs and respects my beliefs (not participating).
the toughest thing is explaining to my MIL, who doesn't believe in trans sub why she can't take the eucharist. she thinks that catholics are being selfish. i've tried to explain that they're being protective of a very powerful act. To take the eucharist 'unprepared' (without confession first) is a sin. to take it as rebellion (as my MIL does), is also a sin--but not on her, but rather on me. I have to accept her sin as mine if i can't convince her to not take the eucharist because she doen't believe as catholics believe. This is why i didn't have a catholic wedding and she wasn't invited to the blessing mass that my husband and i had. She would have insisted on taking communion--even though she very loudly disagrees with the church's perspective on the eucharist AND on their stance to only allow those who believe in the eucharist as the catholic church teaches to participate (which, some protestants do, so they can participates). i simply didn't want to incur the sin-debt on my wedding day. My priest knew i was very upset about this, and we decided to not tell them about or invite them to the blessing service. Perhaps this was closed minded--but i've already had to do 7 novenas of rosaries for that sin--which i've also explained to my MIL and she said "oh, that's just silly." I'm sorry, i don't think any of this is 'just silly.'
--
but i was goign to talk about something else. Dale's statements notwithstanding,
there are *many* christians in *many* denominations who believe that there is one God and that people call this God by many names. Therefore, all of the religions are equal in dignity and importance. There are many christians in many denominations who believe that God is within us, in his various personas (father, son, holy spirit--which is feminine, btw). etc etc etc. | |
| | |
| zoebird, I'd say your MIL was being very selfish, especially on YOUR wedding day. Symbols are powerful.
In my Catholic school I remember the nuns saying they were married to Jesus ok, whatever. I guess I get it a little more now. Seems weird, though, to make things female or male, like Latin languages. The pencil is masculine and books are femme (I'm just making that up). Yin-yang, yeah, yeah, I get it. | |
| | |
| i like my MIL, but we don't have the best relationship. she doesn't 'get' me at all. and i 'get' her--because she's got obvious patterns that fall into certain personality and psychological behavoirs. she can't see beyond herself, her perspective, etc. so, i 'get' her really well, and can basicly negotiate aronud her.
she hates the catholic church. i think at some level, it disturbs her that i'm catholic. my husband and i were married in a quaker meeting that we attend. then, the wedding was blessed by the church. my husband and i decided to omit this truth from his parents. he knew that they would be very upset. They're really upset that we're not UCC--like they are. But then, they wouldn't be UCC either, if the church 1/2 a block from them were anything else. they like the idea of convenience. | |
| | |
| elson - 2005-08-11 3:28 AM
The hard part is choosing to remember this when bad things happen to you. But God explains that the trials that we go thru are gifts to us from a loving Father who is training us to be like Him - loving and good - in the most difficult of circumstances.
That's is the key to life, isn't it? I'm certainly far from being like God (loving and good in all situations ) but I'd say I've come a long way from being a selfish twenty-something. I DO think it's a blessing when things don't go my way or, in fact, backfire. I communicate much more with God when things don't go exactly as I planned - or worse. Maybe God puts obstacles in the way He likes hearing from me
As far as the Catholic Church goes...as much good as I think it has it still has one super big flaw of trying cover up child molestation. I can't help but think the CC is one big gay (man ) religion - all the single men, the virgin birth (like sex with women is icky  ) and not letting women take on any responsibility in the Church. Ok, I want to hear back, Zoe, Dale, Cyndi, et al...
PS I used to live in the Castro in SF and have plenty of gay "boyfriends" so I'm not gay-bashing, just noticing. | |
| | |
| "I think that's what motivates a lot of people when they talk about their religion. It makes me happy, and I want you to be happy, therefore I would like to share this with you. Unfortunately, many times we take this as an affront instead - MY religion makes ME happy, therefore YOU need to understand ME. We become more vested in getting our own point across and stop listening to the intent behind the words."
I am new here but I just wanted to say that these words above are probably the most thoughtful ones I have read in this whole post. As a Christian, who has discovered yoga, I do find myself looking into this wonderful faith that it originated from. Not because I want to convert, but because I have gotten so much out of my yoga and meditation practice, that I want to enhance what I already believe.
Anyway that is my 2 cents
| |
| | |
| Cyndi - 2005-08-11 8:15 AM
elson - 2005-08-11 3:32 AM
The answer from a Christian perspective is that we are not the same as God. Our God has always existed, and always will exist. We, on the other hand, had a beginning - we are created beings. God made us. He made us in His image, but we are not God, and never will be God.
Dale
So, what is the point?? What is the goal then?? The Christian perspective, of course. When I read that, it made me cringe.
I emphasize that this view is from the Xtn perspective to clarify that I am not speaking of your beliefs, but of mine. I'd look pretty silly explaining Buddhism to you :-). And no need to cringe - getting thumped with a virtual bible doesn't hurt much :-).
>> So, what's the point?
I love it! So, what is the meaning of life, the universe, and everything? Probably the most insightful question to come up on this board since I've reading it...
The point is that God, in His infinite love, desired a beloved. And not just one; being God, He is able to fully love as many as He desires. And so we were created. The church - those who love God and are called to be His - are the Bride of Christ. We shall be married at the end of the age, and dwell with Him forever. Kind of difficult to understand, but we can explore it if you wish :-).
Another point is that God desired to demonstrate His glory by creating a race of sentient beings with the ability to chose to do good or to do evil. He then offers goodness to that race. In those who choose the dark side, He demonstrates His glory by His perfect justice. In those who chose Good, He demonstrates His effective love (Great is the LORD, for His love endures forever!) by forgiving their sins and saving them. In addition, His glory is demonstrated by being the only one able to change a heart.
Dale | |
| | |
| *Fifi* - 2005-08-11 10:26 AM
Thank you, Dale.
Are you referring to the Catholic Church as female? I like that! How very da Vinci Code.
I agree that "The Church's" wisdom is overhelming. In fact, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the Catholic Church practices magic similar to Kabbalistic magic. The angels, archangels, vibrations, colors, differenet incense for different seasons, etc...
Magic probabaly isn't the right word but the "results" seem magical :wink:
(I don't mind you elaborating!)
Hello Fifi :-)
Well, the Church is the Bride of Christ, so it is appropriate to speak of her so :-).
Hmmm. I want to be careful here, because even though the Catholic Church has some seriously unbiblical doctrine, she is beloved of God, and God don't like folks dissin his Bride :-).
But I find magic a fascinating topic, and have thought about it a bit. Interestingly, the bible speaks often of magics, especially divination, poisoning, demonic partnerships and possession, &such. It does not speak of elemental magic, or things which primitive cultures would call magic but which we call science, or of superstitions. That is an important distinction.
If a thing that primitives might call magic is actually a technology, then the bible is silent concerning that practice. Acupuncture might fall into that category at the moment, as might particle theory. If it is a superstition, the bible calls that person a fool, and suggest ways for him to gain wisdom.
What the bible speaks of as magic is a supernatural practice that relies on the work of an entity. For instance, attempting to control a demon/spirit/elemental/dead person and such. These practices require an interaction with the forces of darkness (in our view :-), and so are forbidden, both for our protection & the protection of those around us.
Interestingly enough, the church practices holy magic!
If magic is a practice connected to a supernatural entity, you don't get much more supernatural than God :-). So it all depends on which team you are playing on, not whe tools that you use. A good example is a Xtn who prays to God, as opposed to a satanist who performs some ritual in an attempt to get a demon to do something or other.
This is actually a pretty consistent theme in the bible - that which is good is of God, and that which is bad is often a counterfeit.
I wish I had time to figure out how to do a table in html. Here's a fake table
Godly_______________UnGodly
------------------------------------------
done with God________done with other supernatural beings
earned wealth________stolen wealth
peace with God_______drunkenness
love in marriage_______fornication
wife/husband_________prostitute
pure________________adulterated
Dale
Edited by elson 2005-08-12 3:32 AM
| |
| | |
| *Fifi* - 2005-08-11 1:07 PM
zoebird, I'd say your MIL was being very selfish, especially on YOUR wedding day. Symbols are powerful.
In my Catholic school I remember the nuns saying they were married to Jesus ok, whatever. I guess I get it a little more now. Seems weird, though, to make things female or male, like Latin languages. The pencil is masculine and books are femme (I'm just making that up ). Yin-yang, yeah, yeah, I get it.
Indeed, in the afterlife, we will not male and female in the same way as we are now, and there will be no marriage as we know it. What there will be has not been revealed, and we'll just have to wait to find out...
It is the church in total that is/will be the Bride, not individual persons.
The union and intimacy between God and the church will be so amaxing as to make the most passionate of earthly marriages pale. But it will be fundamentally different, and this is not explained in all that much depth.
Just to complicate matters, Xtns are also sons and daughters of the Father, and brothers and sisters of Jesus.
The purpose fo the analogies is to illustrate (sort o flike a koan_ the intensity and depth of the relationship, and to show that it will be different from any earthly relationship that we currently enjoy.
Dale | |
| | |
| Thank you, again, Dale.
I did a search yesterday on this site and I see that the topic of Christianity has already been discussed in great length in a previous thread. The same tight-lipped lady with the bad, 1980's hair started it all with her "Christian Yoga Blah-De-Blah".
Anyway, I've said this before, Dale, you are very well researched and articulate. Are you published? If so, where?
I am still interested in comment regarding pediphilia in the Catholic Church. Nevermind homosexuality, although the pediphiles in the Catholic Church are homosexual. Someone's sexual preference never bothers me, as long as it's human, of age and consensual. I'm not interested in starting a fight, I just want to know if I'm a hypocrite if I go to Church even though I totally disdain the repugnant behavior of relocating deviant criminals in Catholic parishes.
Cheers to you, too - | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | elson - 2005-08-12 3:08 AM
The point is that God, in His infinite love, desired a beloved. And not just one; being God, He is able to fully love as many as He desires. And so we were created. The church - those who love God and are called to be His - are the Bride of Christ. We shall be married at the end of the age, and dwell with Him forever. Kind of difficult to understand, but we can explore it if you wish :-).
Another point is that God desired to demonstrate His glory by creating a race of sentient beings with the ability to chose to do good or to do evil. He then offers goodness to that race. In those who choose the dark side, He demonstrates His glory by His perfect justice. In those who chose Good, He demonstrates His effective love (Great is the LORD, for His love endures forever!) by forgiving their sins and saving them. In addition, His glory is demonstrated by being the only one able to change a heart.
Hey Dale,
I appreciate you taking the time to explain that to me. I think its very interesting for me to revisit this considering I was brought up in the Christian/Baptist faith, but I never took it all in literally because I knew in the back of my mind that there was more...lots more and that it was incomplete for me and my path. My relationship with the universe has been such a personal experience that I just don't have any words to describe it, nor do I want to really. However, in regards to your statements, it intriques me about the being married at the end part - let's talk about that some more, do you mind?? I always think of the Brahman when I hear someone say something like this in nature. What happens to the people who are doing *bad*??
Thanks!
Here is something from the Upanishad,
Apaani-paado-aham-achintya-shaktih pashyaam-achakshuh sa shrinomyakarnah.
Aham vijaanaami viviktaroopo na chaastivetta mama chitsadaaham.
Translation:
I am without hands and feet, I am Brahman endowed with incomprehensible power; I see without eyes, hear without the ears, detached from (intellect, etc), I am the only eternal Knower, there is none other Knower than Me.
Kaivalya Upanishad 21
Explanation
The majestic experience of Self-realization is further described: The little "I" in a human being is his fictitious identity. Identified with the ego self he is dependent of the senses and mind to experience the world of multiplicity, which is nothing but the protection of Maya. Whatever is experienced in the realm of Maya is illusory - like moving pictures in a cinema show. But, the eternal "I Am" is like the screen - ever the same; or like the source of Light - the Absolute Consciousness. Therefore, "I am the only Knower."
| |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 8442
| fifi - I think you are ok to go to church when you know there are repugnant acts done by some individuals because you are ok with belonging to the human race even though there are repugnant acts done by some individuals, living in your country, state, city, etc. The choice of opting out of some fo those is there but .... I think the line for me would come about when I found that the very church or parish or whatever that I belonged to had been knowingly harbouring and protecting those individuals. It would be similar in a work place or other social group. If I found my boss was hiding the fact that a co-worker was a pedophile or a drug dealer or whatever, I would feel compelled to leave. But in spite of the fact that I know there probably are some in my field, does not make me want to leave that field. In my case, it is child care and we screen pretty carefully, but in reality, well, it us bound to happen. And as a yoga teacher as well. We have all heard the scandals and it just makes me personally feel more obligated to act ethically in all ways to support the profession of yoga teaching and to help people understand that, although it does happen, it is NOT the norm. | |
| | |
| Amen Tourist, I totally agree with you. We are all human and thankfully, God knows our heart.
Dale, thanks for all of the enlightment of the Christian faith and Cindy, I enjoy reading about the Buddist's faith. I have a few patient's that have the wooden beads. One wears them on his wrist and is Buddist and the other gentleman has them on a leather string and plays with them while I clean his teeth.
Both of these men got the beads in Viet Nam, the latter man is not Buddist, but said if he was not Catholic, he would be Buddist because he respected it so much. Interesting! The beads were given to these guys by the chaplin. | |
| | |
| I only write on the internet, or for reading in church. I have learned from really skilled and gifted theologians, and I don't see myself having anything to add to their work...
As for the pedafiles in the RCC, I reckon a sociopath is a sociopath, no matter where they are hiding out. Folks who have been accused should be investigated, and if indited, brought to trial. If found guilty, they should be punished according to the law of the land. Anyone found guilty of acting as an accessory should also be punished accordingly. Their being priests or bishops or whatever should have no bearing on the matter.
In theological terms, they have broken the government's law, and now must answer to the government.
I don't know what God's going to do to them, but it isn't going to be pretty...
>> I just want to know if I'm a hypocrite if I go to Church even though I totally disdain the repugnant behavior of relocating deviant criminals in Catholic parishes.
Good question! Do you respect the moral authority of the Catholic Church? Because I don't think that this is really about perverts in the Church per se. I think that the Catholic Church has taught you to have faith in it, instead of in God. And now the Church has broken faith by these horrible sins.
Now would be a good time to figure out who you do trust. If you still trust God, then you now have to decide who speaks for God. If you still believe that the Catholic Church speaks for God, then you will forgive them their sins, and come to a new & wiser relationship with the Church.
If you find that you no longer trust the Catholic Church to speak for God, then we can talk about that in another post... :-)
Dale | |
| | |
| Dale,
You hit the nail on the head. And the answer is no. No way can an institution come inbetween my relationship with God. I can't believe the epiphany I'm having on the internet with people I've never met. I mean I've thought of this since I was a kid! And now, typing on the computer 30-some years later I get it? How slow am I?
Sorry to be a thread hog! Thanks for everyone's reponses. I'd like to continue this topic but I'm feeling like I'm making this all about me. So, I'll sign off for now. Please know I appreciate everyone's input - Cyndi, Tourist, Zoe...Thank! fifi | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 8442
| fifi - it is great, isn't it? A worldwide think tank. I am sure we could solve some of the world's problems if we all tried a bit harder
It has been nip and tuck whether this thread was kept alive or not. Congrats to all for keeping it sane and civil | |
| | |
| i have to agree with what the others wrote--particularly tourist and dale--regarding the situation of priests or other religious leaders doing horrible things or unlawful things.
it certainly does inspire me to try and do better. i feel very comfortable in the catholic church because it seems to connect to a higher reality and teach people how to connect to that themselves. The wonderful quote about testing things that was stated by the Buddha and placed on here by Cyndi was what i was taught throughout my christian education as a catholic. I was taught not to put my faith in the church, but to put my faith in God--and use the spiritual disciplines to gain wisdom, discernment, etc, and develop a relationship with God.
my husband, on the other hand, says that there are many things in the catholic church with which he does not agree--for him, too many things. He believes that it's probably the closest as far as 'getting the ideas right' and teaching the spiritual disciplines and personal responsibility aspects, but he simply doesn't agree with enough of the social ideologies as he would like in order to become a member.
since i am a member, i feel that if there is something in the church that i don't like, it's my responsibility to work within the church and change it. There's an organization that wants homosexuals and their relationships recognized--the organization is called Dignity. There's an organization who works for women priests--Daughters of Sarah. There's an organization for just about every social injustice that people see in or by the church--groups working for change to be a true "Bride of Christ" (which, as Dale mentioned, refers to the whole body of the 'church'--meaning all christians regardless of denominations).
to me, i don't need my husband to be a member. he needs to follow his own path--and that's ok by me. I understand that he doesn't want to join a club that he'll then have to work to change. It doesn't make sense. But it does make sense to him that i would be in the church and working to change it for the better. One of the groups that i work with is Corpus Christi--which is an organization that fights the death penalty throughout the world. This organization was part of the reason that the ammendments to the chatechism in 1997 included a statement regarding the death penalty--that the catholic church no longer supported it! This is now officially part of the doctrine, thanks to the work of individuals like Sister Prejean and groups like Corpus Christi.
So, we all find a place. And some of us aren't meant for the changing work, either. It is enough for us to go there for spiritual and personal nourishment--find the food for the soul that is there--and leave the rest of it in God's hands. And that's ok too. it's just as important. | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | elson - 2005-08-12 3:29 AM
But I find magic a fascinating topic, and have thought about it a bit. Interestingly, the bible speaks often of magics, especially divination, poisoning, demonic partnerships and possession, &such. It does not speak of elemental magic, or things which primitive cultures would call magic but which we call science, or of superstitions. That is an important distinction.
If a thing that primitives might call magic is actually a technology, then the bible is silent concerning that practice. Acupuncture might fall into that category at the moment, as might particle theory. If it is a superstition, the bible calls that person a fool, and suggest ways for him to gain wisdom.
What the bible speaks of as magic is a supernatural practice that relies on the work of an entity. For instance, attempting to control a demon/spirit/elemental/dead person and such. These practices require an interaction with the forces of darkness (in our view :-), and so are forbidden, both for our protection & the protection of those around us.
Interestingly enough, the church practices holy magic!
If magic is a practice connected to a supernatural entity, you don't get much more supernatural than God :-). So it all depends on which team you are playing on, not whe tools that you use. A good example is a Xtn who prays to God, as opposed to a satanist who performs some ritual in an attempt to get a demon to do something or other.
This is actually a pretty consistent theme in the bible - that which is good is of God, and that which is bad is often a counterfeit.
I wish I had time to figure out how to do a table in html. Here's a fake table
Godly_______________UnGodly
------------------------------------------
done with God________done with other supernatural beings
earned wealth________stolen wealth
peace with God_______drunkenness
love in marriage_______fornication
wife/husband_________prostitute
pure________________adulterated
Dale
Hi Dale,
I'm just coming into this thread, back from a nice trip, and I haven't read the
whole thing. I did want to respond to one thing in the above table (btw, you
use the html tags table, tr (row), td (for elements in columns), etc.)
When you mention "god" and "other supernatural beings", I'm immediately
drawn to the question of how god is identified (or defined) and who these
other beings are. For example, suppose that we have a whole bunch of supernatural
beings one of whom is actually god. Then I can see easily how others can
masquerade as god or offer their services in his place. But suppose instead
that the question is my religion's version of god as opposed to another
religion's version of god. How do we sort that out? And, for that matter, how
do you (or I) know that the god we follow is not, in fact, a pretender?
| |
| | |
| Fifi :-)
Well, you know, this thread was pretty much done with previous topics before you chimed in with some interesting stuff :-).
I like what tourist said about the presense of pervs in an organization not discrediting the organization unless the org tries to cover it up, and then only the folks who are doing the coverup are dirty. Very good point!
Also, as I understand it, the Vatican was prodded into action by the outcry of the faithful as much as anything else. My guess is that if the faithful had not raise holy hell about this, it would still be covered up. That leads me to think about the increasing role of lay people in the RCC. You might feel more ownership for your church if you moved more into servant leadership. Something to think about.
However, if your theology drives you out of the RCC, then you have to go. But do not leave the faith because the RCC no longer seems like the true church to you - there are alot of Protestant churches. But you might want to look for a church whose statement of faith matches your beliefs, and one that you might come to trust enough that you would trust them to teach the bible correctly.
I've had to go thru this a couple of times, and it is not fun. But my understanding of God grew past the theology of a church, and led me to conclusions that were not acceptable to that church, so I went to a church whose theology more nearly matched mine.
I'm going to start another thread that should be interesting - the role of Truth in religion, and how the Truth is detected and determined. Ought to be fun :-). | |
| | |
| I totally embrace the idea of Christian Yoga - I feel it will help me with my faith and my body... but I suspect this woman of really trying to sell this "alternative" idea. From what I've seen, she's essentially the only one offering such an "alternative". I don't think it's really as different as she'd have us believe, anyway... This just feels very marketed, and I've found my gut is often accurate.
I'm not trying to be judgemental of her - that's just my honest impression. | |
| | |
| I'm coming in really late in the game.. both in this thread and in my spiritual life... I was lost for a really long time and have only in the last 2 years been working myself back in.. I tend to shy away from organized religion because I have a hard time separating the messenger from the message. There seems to be so much corruption around- with molestation, with the TV evangelists, etc.. that I have a hard time listening to the "word of God" coming out of thier mouths. Now, that's not to say I will always feel like that.. but now, for me, I have to listen to the message in my own heart and not rely on messengers I don't yet trust.... | |
| | |
| Bay Guy,
I used to question who was right, like I think you're saying. I was on the brink of Christianity, and wanted to believe, and could feel God trying to get me, but I was fighting it. I read a book called The 23rd Paslm, and that was it. I was a believer. Then, and this is the book I recommend for you, I read The Case for Christ. It explained to my satisfaction (not that God needs me to be satisfied for Him to be real!) that Christ is the one and only path to God.
I have enjoyed reading this thread. I came online to ask a question after reading Gita, and read this thread to see if it was answered. An hour later, it's not here and I'm too tired to keep reading other threads. So, off to make a new post. | |
| | |
| tourist - 2005-07-24 12:30 PM
Hi nath - that explanation works for those with a liberal view of religion and spirituality but does not work at all for the "hardliners." There are also some very specific theological arguements I've read by those with far more education that I have that show that for many people, doing yoga for more than physical excercise just is not in line with their beliefs. And that is ok, I think. I find it sad though, that the ultra conservatives feel they need an "alternative" practice (which looks pretty much exactly like the non-alternative as I see it ) because it separates and divides people and communities when we really need a lot less separateness and more togetherness.
Her wanting to create her alternative reminds me of Christian holidays masking pagan holidays. She is taking something she considers evil and masking it with her own version. I came across her article when I was looking for oppinions on religion and yoga. It gave me a headache. Surprised she is not out there telling Christian women to stop wearing men's clothes.
Not doing yoga because it started with another religion is like not eating french fries because they have the word french in them so they must be for french people only. Many religions have ways of worshipping that are similar to others, why does the practice of yoga have to be different? As you said about seperating and as I posted elsewhere, I think yoga is one more way to help bring us together as a people. | |
| | |
| The word Hinduism is just a synonym for Yoga. The word Hinduism is not found in the "Hindu" religion or in any vedic texts. In fact there is no such thing as the Hindu religion. The word Hindu comes from the river Sindhu . The Persians or Arabs called the people who lived in India "Hindus" as in their language "S" becomes "H" for instance in Persian the Asura of Indian Vedic mythology became the Ahura of Persian mythology. So the Sindhus or river people were called Hindus, this is because their cities were almost exclusively around the great rivers Sarasvati, Indus or Ganges. It were the British who started calling the religion of these people as "Hinduism". Out of the different types of yoga i.e. Hatha Yoga, Jnana Yoga, Bhakti yoga, Karma Yoga etc. Bhakti Yoga is what most of the people in India follow. This is what the British called "Hinduism". As a matter of fact there is no religion called Hinduism, its just a British term for the various religions based on the ancient Yoga Texts and Vedas. Yoga is the religion of Hindus. “Sadhana” involving chanting of mantras and praying to a diety is part of the Bhakti Yoga system & is not a cult activity. A majority of Hindus almost 85% of Hindus follow this as their religious or yoga practice. Yoga is a religion, Hatha Yoga requires the practise of Asanas or meditative techniques and is just one aspect of the Yoga system or religion.
So anyone who's practising yoga is indeed practising Hinduism | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | Kym - 2007-01-04 1:15 AM Bay Guy, I used to question who was right, like I think you're saying. I was on the brink of Christianity, and wanted to believe, and could feel God trying to get me, but I was fighting it. I read a book called The 23rd Paslm, and that was it. I was a believer. Then, and this is the book I recommend for you, I read The Case for Christ. It explained to my satisfaction (not that God needs me to be satisfied for Him to be real!) that Christ is the one and only path to God. I have enjoyed reading this thread. I came online to ask a question after reading Gita, and read this thread to see if it was answered. An hour later, it's not here and I'm too tired to keep reading other threads. So, off to make a new post. Hi Kym, Thanks for the recommendation. I have spent a good deal of thought on the general question of Christ, and while I find much good in his teachings, I find that I understand god better as a nondual concept, something within myself and everyone else, rather than some guy with a rule book. If I think of others, as I look out for myself and my family, the rules become pretty evident without my having to worry about heavens and hells (those, I suppose, will find me without my having to plan ahead!). If I do run across the book you mention, I will certainly look at it carefully. Om Namah Sivaya .. bg | |
| | |
| Greetings friends,
This is a late post for this thread, but it reminds me of a little thought experiment I did a few years ago. I went to each of the world's major religions and used their internal search engines to research their Writings on the word "breath." Guess what? They all said pretty much the same thing: what their Prophest brought to humanity was the gift of breath.
The pons/medulla, a thickening at the top of the spinal cord before it enters the brain, transmits a regular nerve signal to the respiratory center which causes us to inhale. We don't know where that nerve impulse comes from, although we know that it responds to internal conditions of the blood. You can be completely brain-dead (no cerebral cortex function), and still keep breathing as a result of this little nerve impulse form the medulla. Remember Terry Schiavo? We are being breathed, regardless of our religious beliefs.
Michael
| |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | I don't know whether I'd completely agree with all the big religions, but it's certainly true that breath is ... autonomic? automatic... there is a really powerful passage on breath in the Upanishads. Perhaps I'll post it when I get a chance. Most religions have in them some common themes about morality and survival issues -- don't kill people, don't steal, don't screw your neighbor's wife, take care of your body, etc etc. It's all pretty basic stuff about maintaining a civil society. Why is it in religion? Maybe the best way to get folks to observe these basic behaviors (if they won't just do so) is to convince them that there's some big omniscient god in the background who will ruin them or send them to Hell (or both) if they don't. Man creates religion to enforce social policy. ... bg | |
| | |
| Hi Bay,
Any relation to Buddy?
Michael | |
| | |
| Bay Guy - 2007-03-08 9:55 PM
I don't know whether I'd completely agree with all the big religions, but it's certainly true that breath is ... autonomic? automatic... there is a really powerful passage on breath in the Upanishads. Perhaps I'll post it when I get a chance. Most religions have in them some common themes about morality and survival issues -- don't kill people, don't steal, don't screw your neighbor's wife, take care of your body, etc etc. It's all pretty basic stuff about maintaining a civil society. Why is it in religion? Maybe the best way to get folks to observe these basic behaviors (if they won't just do so) is to convince them that there's some big omniscient god in the background who will ruin them or send them to Hell (or both) if they don't. Man creates religion to enforce social policy. ... bg
Yes Dear BG: Religaire means to bind, 'bind with values' so that the society can function smoothly. That is what the religion is all about. And, the Philosophy is another matter. In Indian Philosophy, there are two types of scriptures: called Dharamashastra (example: manusmriti) and Shastra (example: patanjali yoga sutras). The first one deals with rules to be followed by society and can be called as what is known as Hinduism today. The second one is what gives personal practice that leads to spiritual liberation, which you seem to like. Of course, there is some overlap. That means in Puranas you will find Yoga. And, in some Yoga Texts you shall find social rules. In Patanjali, there are social rules such as Ahimsa. But, they are actually not meant for society's benefit. They are meant for yogi's own benefit.
And, it is interesting to know that NONE of the Indian Scripture use the word Hindu, invented definitely by Western Historians, to compare Indians with Christianity and such.
| |
| | |
| I am very late to this party. I am a member of an Episcopal church and take the Bible not as liberal truth but as the stories of my tradition. I am definitely out on the fringe but it is a more accepted fringe these days. I attend a Centering Prayer group where we do meditation in a Christian context, but we are very open about other mystic traditions. The meditations I do are primarily learned from Yoga and Zen. The most awesome spiritual experience of my life was chanting in a Zendo on a retreat; I felt the oneness more strongly than I ever had before. I don't feel like I betrayed my faith. I deepened it.
The people who try to take the Bible literally need to look a little closer. Many people point to the quote from Jesus "No one comes to the Father except through me." as proof that Christianity is the only way. But they don't look at the context. Jesus told his disciples he was going away (the ascension) and Thomas asked how they could find him. His answer really seems to be "seek the One" and there you will also find Jesus. My interpretation of that is almost the opposite of the hard liners. I think it says that seeking the One is what it is all about and not to worry about looking for the favored teacher. Also, the Bible only mentions the judgement day one time and very plainly details what the decision is based on. It says nothing about what you believe or who you prayed to. It asks "When I was hungry did you feed me? When I was sick did you comfort me?" and so on until it wraps up with the explanation "whatever you did to the least of these, you did to me."
The message is compassion and caring., not swearing fealty to a book.
| |
| | |
| Dear Optymystic: I like your statements (and, perhaps You!) Yes, it is more important to know what Jesus said than to listen to a financial institute interpreting Jesus in their light. | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | There's lots of good stuff in the Bible, if only folks would lighten up on the hard core extrapolations and ignore the more regrettable passages. My favorites are Corinthians I:13, The Song of Solomon, and a few of the Red Letter passages in Luke: 27 "But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29 If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. 30 Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31 Do to others as you would have them do to you. I'm fond of the Book of Job for what it has taught me about the nature of g-d, particularly through the lens of Jung's Answer to Job. .. bg | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 8442
| Ah the boards are cranky again! Sometimes you have to add a post to see what is on the next page.... | |
| | |
| tourist - 2007-03-15 10:39 AM
Ah the boards are cranky again! Sometimes you have to add a post to see what is on the next page....
I ran into that problem the other night. It turns out that if you switch from Flat to Threaded view of the topic, you can see the single post on the new page. Kind of a pain, but it works.
On the original topic, here is an interesting Wiki article about how the Bible was written and assembled. As I said earlier, it has the stories of my tradition and I treat it with reverence and respect. It has many great teachings about compassion and kindness toward others. But I don't take it entirely literally. There are several contradictions that make that nearly impossible. Some hard liners offer explanations about how to interpret some things differently to resolve the contradictions which undermines their whole argument of taking it literally without applying your own interpretations.
Here is an interesting tidbit from a Washington Post article:
In a look at pastoral pay, including housing, the National Association of Church Business Administration found the average annual salary to be $91,200. The low side in the survey was $13,700 a year, and the high was $249,600.
As a member of a protestant Church in the US, I have to say that money is probably the single largest thing we are openly hypocritical about. On average, we pay our pastors roughly twice the median household income in the US. We ignore the admonition on giving in open view of others and pass the plate. And what happens with the money in the plate? I will pick on my own religion, the Episcopal Church. If you read this church's page on outreach they brag that their outreach budget of 6.2% is almost double the average! We had an associate rector deliver an impassioned sermon about that one year. I noticed he had a cake pan on the pulpit and was pleasantly surprised to find out its purpose. He burned the proposed budget, talked about Jesus taking a whip to the money changers at the temple and asked us to guess how he might treat us. The budget passed and he left to head a nearby mission which went broke within a few years because he gave away every dime he could. God bless him! Anyway, I feel pretty guilty about the state of affairs of American religion. And it really annoys me when I see high paid pastors in ornate churches thumping the Bible and saying you are headed for eternal ****ation if you don't follow every rule (as interpreted by that Church;s leaders) to the letter.
Edited by OptiMystic 2007-03-16 11:00 AM
| |
| |
|
Promoting a Christian Alternat