I said “what if”?
I don’t have the skill or depth of knowledge, but there are apologists who do.
And most theologians DO see the historical truth of the scirptures.
Do you deny that the Apostle Paul was a real person?
There is historical evidence for Paul. There is no historical evidence for Jesus or his disciples.
I am sorry I am a man of science and reason. I do not accept things on the value of faith alone. Based on the evidence I don’t think the biblical Jesus existed. I have some reason to believe that there was a Rabbi called Jesus who may have been some kind of spiritual teacher, but then later was exaggerated into a myth by his followers and the resultant of that is the bible.
The NT for me is a highly errorneous, dubious and somewhat fictional work, probably very loosed based on real events and people, and has no credibility.
So then Paul was a story teller and a liar.
But how are you so sure about that?
Thanks for not responding to my request for an answer…perhaps my question wasn’t worthy of a reply hey.
Thank you core for your post #77.as it answers my #46 question that I asked about.
And has also made something clearer to me that I have been reading about.
So thank you
Question…People practicing their religions, their process, shall we say… many of them, must experience the divine or they wouldn’t carry on with their religion/process or make the statements they make with regards to their experiences…so if their ends meet the same ends as someone practicing the Hindu process, then there [B]MUST[/B] be another factor at play that has nothing to do with any particular Religion/process.
Dear Kareng,
Sorry I stayed up really late last night and did not have time to address your particular questions, but I was intending to address them the next day.
There are many high order Christians (and others of course) who have experienced many deep insights, satisfying them to a degree that a Hindu might in their practice…so if the process of Hindu Yoga is the right path, what is it the other faiths achieve in their process, i mean, does it meet the same ends with the ultimate union of divine experience or what ever is the term used broadly speaking…(if you get me)
And if so then it cant matter what religeon you belong to. And there must be another factor at play that has nothing to do with any religious practice.
A dedicated member of any other religion can and does achieive the same result. As this is a natural state of being that is achieved when the mind activity stills. Sometimes this stilling of mind activity takes place spontaneously, but the real cause of this is past karmas. At other times this stilling is achieived through the use of substances. Finally, very intense dedication to your ishta can also achieive the same result eventually.
Yoga can be seen as a controlled process in stilling the mind.
So no you don’t have to be Hindu in order to achieive that natural state. The Hindus have simply explained it the best out of all religions and created the most effective, quickest and powerful methods in order to achieive it. Thomas, who keeps insisting that he does not require the non-asana part of Yoga, because his own religion provides that part is being foolish there. His religion does not provide anything more than a vague brief to accept Jesus and live a life of no-sin. This, rather than producing spiritually enlightened people, produces paranoid, insecure, dogmatic and dishonest people. The history of Christianity will attest to this fact.
The truth is, whoever this Jesus was, we have seen hundreds of such people come and go in Hindu history. These are people we describe as achieiving their natural state and there is nothing special about them individually. We teach people how to achieive exactly what they had and we have a wonderful track record to prove our methods work in getting those results. For literalists like Thomas they unfortunately begin to believe that people like Jesus are special and they cannot become like them, so they lower their aim in life as to what can be achieved. I showed this in the “I am God” thread. People prefer to be servants of god or children of god, but not one with god or god themselves. Underlying this is the ego principle, which sees everything and everybody as separate things.
Not just religious people do this, all people do this. Such as people who believe that people like Mozart and Einstein are special and not everybody can be like them. You either have it or you don’t. The Hindus, however, have realised the fundamental truth through both reason and experience that all mind-body constructions(whether they be Mozart, Einstein or Jesus) are temporal and false constructions. The witnessing consciousness that is present in all these constructions is the same and has exactly the same potential. You are that and you can all become that.
This is why the Hindu who is learned in their religion is the most fortunate of all souls on this planet because he/ she has access to the nautral religion. In the words of Oppenheimer, the modern age in the West is the most fortunate, because it has access to the Vedas.
The Christian Gnostic, the Islamic Sufi, the Jewish Kabbalist, the Native Shaman are almost as fortunate as the Hindus, because they have Vedic knowledge indirectly.
A Christian is less fortunate because they have access to only half-truths, a lot of distortions and fabrications.
The Muslim and Jew is the least fortunate because they have access to a religion which is mainly just mythology, heresay and ritual.
Bravo Surya…you have answered my question! Thanks very much…I think there is nothing more for me to ask on the matter, for the moment…you have answered it too well …(if thats possible)
I received a message about this post, and want to respond and clarify.
There was no intent to be offensive to anyone.
I was sharing the Catholic position about sexual morality, which rules out any sexual activity outside of a heterosexual marriage. I did not mean to be insulting to gays, but from a Catholic perspective, though it is not a sin to have homosexual inclinations, it is a serious sin to physically practice homosexuality, as it is for unmarried heterosexuals to engage in sexual activity, or for individuals to engage in solitary sexual acts, or for married couples to use contraception, or for married couples to have sexual activity with someone other than their spouse.
The point I had been trying to make was that some will try to make the religion in their own image, and when challenged to change, attempt to change the religion, or bend the rules to accomodate and validate their behavior, and say that that’s what “Jesus would want” for them.
A man who is a theif and who has five wives would need to change his life radically to become a Catholic or to join most Protestant churches. That’s what he should do, but what if he looks for a church which preaches polygamy and stealing and what if he finds one? Maybe somewhere some organization will validate his immoral and sinful behavior and “love” him and his stealing and adulterous ways, but from the perspective of what I believe is an objective morality, he’s no better than he was before, and I would be a traitor to my own faith, and would do him a great disservice to show approval and love for his lifestyle, though I could still love and relate to him as a person.
The bottom line is that in Catholicism, a gay man or woman will have to live a chaste life in order to be a practicing Catholic, as does an unmarried heterosexual, or a married couple who might not be able to have relations because of health issues.
I don’t know why life can be so hard or unfair sometimes, but these are challenges and crosses which we’ve been given, and maybe they are a test of our fidelity to Christ.
I realize that there are those who think differently about this, and I have no issues with them. But it’s not unloving or unkind for me to share what I believe is the truth, and I should not change what I believe is the truth to accomodate what I see is an immoral lifestyle, and should not have to be silent about it, though I would not go out of my way to criticize it either. This is a message board discussion about religion, so it’s natural that religious principles will be discussed, and not everyone will be pleased by someone else’s religious ideas.
[QUOTE=thomas;41039]Can a Christian be a yogi?
I suppose it really depends upon how we define Christianity.
I have heard of people who don’t believe in Christ and call themselves Christians. I have heard on this board of people who instead of believing that Christ came to save the soul from Hell, that we are reborn over and over until we get it right. I have heard of people who call themselves Christians, but who make up their own rules regarding sexual morality, and are totally fine with fornication, homosexual unions, and adultery.
From my perspective, I don’t think that yoga in its entirety can be practiced by Christians, though I’m not 100% certain about that yet. I am clear that a Christian can do the physical exercises, though he must proceed with caution.
But the way to fix this is to simply say that Yoga IS Chrisianity.
Then EVERYONE who practices yoga is a Christian.[/QUOTE]
[quote=thomas;41108] …though it is not a sin to have homosexual inclinations, it is a serious sin to physically practice homosexuality…
The point I had been trying to make was that some will try to make the religion in their own image, and when challenged to change, attempt to change the religion, or bend the rules to accomodate and validate their behavior, and say that that’s what “Jesus would want” for them.
A man who is a theif and who has five wives would need to change his life radically to become a Catholic or to join most Protestant churches.
The bottom line is that in Catholicism, a gay man or woman will have to live a chaste life in order to be a practicing Catholic…[/quote]
Thomas,
I think it is hugely unfair and extremely simplistic to compare gay people to thieves and polygamists, the one is a moral choice (being a thief) and in the other the person has very little choice in the matter, it is their DNA.
Problem with your last statement, I have many straight Roman Catholic friends who do not live a chaste life, they fornicate, cheat on their wives, with other women and men, but on Sunday they sit in church and take communion. Unfortunately life is not just black and white no matter what the Roman Church says about these matters!
Sorry friend, but I think a reality check by both you and the Church might serve the Catholic faith very well in the long run, otherwise I am afraid the more tolerant Hinduism will be the world religion within the next 100 years and Surya Deva will be right. 
I’ve taken over 35 theology courses, sat on the board of three gay and lesbian non profits, and have memorized every version of the bible I’m aware of. Therefore, it is in my very expert opinion that, the problem with gay people is that they’re gay and, as the bible says, they should therefore not eat pork on Fridays.
Meditate on that wisdom yogis.
Problem with your last statement, I have many straight Roman Catholic friends who do not live a chaste life, they fornicate, cheat on their wives, with other women and men, but on Sunday they sit in church and take communion. Unfortunately life is not just black and white no matter what the Roman Church says about these matters!
It IS black and white. Those people are doing wrong, and should not be receiving Communion until they get things straightened out.
Anyway, I did not intentionally mean to offend you or anyone else. I simply stated a teaching of of Roman Catholicism to make a point.
And I did not mean to compare a gay person to a theif, but to make the point that a seeker of truth should look for the truth and not count the costs, and not necessarily go to the place that is most comfortable, because the first truth he learns might be that he’s doing something wrong and needs to change.
If you’re at peace with what you’re doing, I don’t see why my words, which are not “my” words at all, but the teaching of the largest Church in the world, would be offesnive, especially when I have nothing personal against anyone here, and did not mean to offend.
[quote=David;41132]I’ve taken over 35 theology courses, sat on the board of three gay and lesbian non profits, and have memorized every version of the bible I’m aware of. Therefore, it is in my very expert opinion that, the problem with gay people is that they’re gay and, as the bible says, they should therefore not eat pork on Fridays.
Meditate on that wisdom yogis.[/quote]
Now that is great wisdom, and as far as I know they usually have sausage on Fridays!
Thomas, who keeps insisting that he does not require the non-asana part of Yoga, because his own religion provides that part is being foolish there. His religion does not provide anything more than a vague brief to accept Jesus and live a life of no-sin. This, rather than producing spiritually enlightened people, produces paranoid, insecure, dogmatic and dishonest people. The history of Christianity will attest to this fact.
I think you’re lacking in knowledge about my religion, especially Catholicism. I think the idea of “Sacraments” are totally foreign to you, and you don’t understand their significance and power.
I know many spiritually enlightend Catholics. I do not know any who are paranoid, insecure, dogmatic, and dishonest, though I don’t doubt they exist, but this would be in spite of and not because of Catholicism.
The most “dogmatic” person I know is you. You make proclamations about every faith besides your own, as if you are the pope of all religions, and that your word is authoritative, though at best all you’ve got are opinions and guesses.
You know Hinduism, but you don’t know or understand Christianity–only very superficially. Your presentation of Christianity is like a cartoon.
Unfortunately not, because the Church and the priest administering is not aware what congregants do in their private lifes.
I am sure you didn’t, but you did. Stating the teaching and I suspect you agree with it, you are making your point load and clear. To now say you are simply stating that of the Church, well that is being a coward in my books. Take responsibility, if you want to say I am a homophobe and a racist and a bigot, do it man, don’t blame the words on the Church. Stand up for what you belief, but don’t dress it up as the teaching of this or that.
Again, I am sure you didn’t mean to, but again you did and in so doing you made it your own, you add to the already negativity of the hateful words of others on this matter and similar. I cannot see why a seeker of Truth cannot be gay as well? If it is wrong, then that is your perception and not that of the seeker who might be gay as well. Perhaps God gave that seeker a break from family life so that he can have the freedom to seek freely without the constraints of a family?
I am 100% of the time at peace with my life and my path as I view it as Divine Will, questioning it and labelling it as a sin is like telling God, the creator that He is a failure and made a mistake. I belief God do not make mistakes, even by creating a person gay.
You see you belief what the Roman Church says, so they are your words as well and they do offend.
Now I’ll have a vegetarian sausage for breakfast. 
I am sure you didn’t, but you did. Stating the teaching and I suspect you agree with it, you are making your point load and clear. To now say you are simply stating that of the Church, well that is being a coward in my books. Take responsibility, if you want to say I am a homophobe and a racist and a bigot, do it man, don’t blame the words on the Church. Stand up for what you belief, but don’t dress it up as the teaching of this or that.
I don’t understand. I agree with what the Church teaches. I believe the Church is of God and not of men, and is incapable of teaching error when it concerns faith or morals.
But I do not believe those outside the Church who do not have the benefit of this guidance are as culpable as those within the Church who know better.
I don’t see why you have resorted to name-calling. I am now a “coward” a “homophobe” a “bigot” and a “racist” for stating a teaching of my Church, one that I agree with, along with everything the Church teaches, including those things that challenge me and my own sins.
I don’t believe God makes mistakes but I believe the human race is a fallen race, full of disordered desires and behaviors (and no person is free of them) because of the orginal fall, which is why we need a Church and why we need a Savior.
[quote=thomas;41138]I don’t understand. I agree with what the Church teaches. I believe the Church is of God and not of men, and is incapable of teaching error when it concerns faith or morals.
But I do not believe those outside the Church who do not have the benefit of this guidance are as culpable as those within the Church who know better.[/quote]
I think this is a fundamental difference between you and me, I belief the Church is not of God, but man made and as such are prone to error. We will then not see eye to eye on this matter and I’ll leave it there.
Apologies if I call you a coward and suggested that you are all of the other names I suggested, but I did it on purpose, can you see how my words have hurt you? Can you now see how your words might have hurt me?
Then if you don’t belief that God makes mistakes, see His perfection in everything, even in gays, no matter what the church teaches, but again this is where we differ, you see the Church as God. I don’t. the church is fallable, God not and for me the two are vastly different.
Originally Posted by David View Post
I’ve taken over 35 theology courses, sat on the board of three gay and lesbian non profits, and have memorized every version of the bible I’m aware of. Therefore, it is in my very expert opinion that, the problem with gay people is that they’re gay and, as the bible says, they should therefore not eat pork on Fridays.
Meditate on that wisdom yogis.
Originally Posted in reply to David by Pandara…Now that is great wisdom, and as far as I know they usually have sausage on Fridays!
Hahahahahah well David and Pandara what can i say…my sight is going
Cqrrt on sorrk
The divine is loving , caring, forgiving, understanding, beautiful, all knowing, creative, perfect… The Church, trys to be but doesn’t quite make the grade Thomas
Differentiation between insulting and using the tools of debate is always a problem on the Religion forum and a very grey area, it seems xx
As long as just don’t get hair on the palms of your hands, then everything is just dandy!
hahahah Ive just got the joke I made…that was by accident and your very naughty, but nice:grin:
Pandara…naughty but nice is taken from a famous advert in Britain for fresh cream in Buns x