Was Christ a Yogi?

[Lion6969]

Years of research???

That's a good one.

If i tell you there's a cat in your closet you can do "years of research" to "prove" why a cat could never be in a closet but once you were convinced that you were "right" all you would be left with is your ego telling you how "brilliant" you are.

Typical mystic, resort to meaningless riddles, tales and analogies. Years of research not only into the nonsense you believe but the philosophical premises which you clearly have no knowledge of. I mean come on please read back to yourself what you typed, it's nonsensical. My cat hides in alsorts of places including closets, maybe youre trying to convince yourself about coming out of the closet. Lol.

A truly intelligent man would just open the closet door and prove to himself one way or another whether that cat exists.

It's much more fun thinking "I'm brilliant" and telling the world how brilliant you are than ever taking the trouble of walking to the closet and turning the handle.

.

Again the nonsense above is basically saying you can't critcise or analyse and pass judgment on mystic mumbo jumbo, unless you walked the path. What a ridiculous notion.

Again read to yourself what you type, your trying to sound all intelligent, philosophical and mystical lol, while what you actually say has no substance.

[Lion6969]

"it" ? being what ? Mysticism ? It appears "non-sense" to logic, as too, the sheer fact of existence is "non-sense", and has no rational underpinnings of any kind, despite how Hawking and his ilk try to feign otherwise. When logic hits the end of the trail, you are in the trackless wilderness that is mysticism. But you have the option to venture there, if you dare.

Lol. Again more riddles and blue sky notions. When science is exhausted (not logic), then you enter metaphysics, logic, rational and other standards of knowledge are just as applicable dealing with metaphysics. No mysticism required, no hocus pocus, far fetched imaganitive notions like a god within us. Really, where is this god in you?

[Lion6969]

Hehe Lion! We've thrashed this one out before haven't we? Yes it was Jesus (who was God incarnate) who died on the cross for our sins

So if god and Jesus are one as you said. God died on the cross, how or what god is capable of dying from spear?

[Shabd Mystic]

Typical mystic, resort to meaningless riddles, tales and analogies. Years of research not only into the nonsense you believe but the philosophical premises which you clearly have no knowledge of. I mean come on please read back to yourself what you typed, it's nonsensical. My cat hides in alsorts of places including closets, maybe youre trying to convince yourself about coming out of the closet. Lol.

Again the nonsense above is basically saying you can't critcise or analyse and pass judgment on mystic mumbo jumbo, unless you walked the path. What a ridiculous notion.

Again read to yourself what you type, your trying to sound all intelligent, philosophical and mystical lol, while what you actually say has no substance.

I've gotta say, although I now realize I've bitten off more than I can chew with this thread, it surely has been very entertaining in spots, and none more than your posts.

..

[Shabd Mystic]

Really, where is this god in you?

He's in the closet next to your cat but you'll never find Him so don't worry about it.

.

[Lion6969]

I've gotta say, although I now realize I've bitten off more than I can chew with this thread, it surely has been very entertaining in spots, and none more than your posts.

..

You mystics are the best entertainers, with the high flying imagination and blue sky thinking

[Shabd Mystic]

Shabd Mystic, how does Mysticism approach the topic of dealing with sin?

Meditation.

.

You mystics are the best entertainers, with the high flying imagination and blue sky thinking

Glad we could be of service.

[Habitat]

Lol. Again more riddles and blue sky notions. When science is exhausted (not logic), then you enter metaphysics, logic, rational and other standards of knowledge are just as applicable dealing with metaphysics. No mysticism required, no hocus pocus, far fetched imaganitive notions like a god within us. Really, where is this god in you?

It beggars belief that anyone who has claimed to 'research' the subject so much, would have failed to recognize that this is not an academic exercise, but a practical one. The beauty of mysticism is that it requires nothing to achieve its goal, but the 'nothing' is also mandatory ! If you think you can bring something along with you, you fail. Your academic "achievements" will avail of nothing here, they are just dead weight holding you back.

[Habitat]

I don't know what formal studies you completed in religious matters, Lion6969, but if the upshot of it all is that you didn't learn that mystical experience is the originator of all the great religions, go get your money back, either the instruction you received is hopelessly inadequate, or just maybe you weren't paying attention !

[Shabd Mystic]

Perhaps the answer lies not in the "pray privately" section but rather the "don't be like the hypocrites". Why would a hypocrite pray in public? The answer is simple, and one that was quite common - some people prayed aloud just so that they could be SEEN to be righteous. The more they prayed in public, the more people would look on them and say "Wow, they are so faithful, how good must this person be". Hypocrites who pray for this reason don't pray because of godly motivations but rather selfish motivations. Therefore do not be like them, pray quietly.

I dare say I'm pretty sure that there are some Christians to whom this passage directly affects. When we pray together, some people will pray just because they think it is expected of them, and others might use a lot of words and praise just so that they can look good in front of the others. In this case, I think it fair to say that they are like the hypocrites to which Jesus was referring. Especially if these people not only prayed aloud during church gatherings but also in public (eg, praying very loudly in a restaurant, just so that the other diners can see you praying). However, praying in small groups or as a church as a whole during church gatherings, in and of themselves that does not denote hypocrisy. It depends on whether the motives are godly or selfish - or to put it in other words, are we praying to glorify God or are we praying to glorify ourselves? That is the defining factor as to whether a person is praying "like the hypocrite".

That is consistent with Jesus' teaching, as far as I can tell.

~ PA

I believe your focusing on the wrong point. I think the word "hypocrite can be removed so that it says:

"When you pray, don't pray publicly on street corners and in the synagogues where everyone can see you."

The fact that He is using the hypocrites who pray publicly to make His point in no way says he is limiting His statement only to "hypocrites." If that was His point he would simply say "don't be a hypocrite and go out saying prayers in front of everybody when you don't even believe or follow my teachings."

He is telling us HOW to pray, not what we should be thinking while we pray.

Communication with God is a one-on-one thing. It's not meant for public display. It's just like charity. TRUE charity is anonymous. It seeks no glory or rewards. And TRUE charity doesn't even desire God's approval or rewards. It is done solely out of love for those who desperately need it. Even if Jesus Himself said in the Bible that you would receive no "credit" or no benefit whatsoever, and later you still quietly gave to a charity, that would be TRUE charity because it came solely from your love of others.

Ironically, the teachings of the Masters all say that is actually the only type of charity that will ever reward you "spiritually." And prayer (or "contemplation" or "meditation") is the same thing. The only type that will ever really benefit you is that which comes solely from your love of God, and never because of self love (or ego), even when that motivation is so small that you can't see it.

It's just like me posting on this board defending the Mystics or you posting defending "Jesus." No matter what our minds tell us our motivation is, the fact is that is about our egos. Jesus doesn't need you defending Him nor do the other Masters need me doing the same for Them. We tell ourselves it's only about our love for Jesus/the Masters just like we tell ourselves that going to church to pray is about all kinds of other things.

If going to church to pray was solely about our love of God we wouldn't even need to go to a church. Praying at home and reading the scriptures at home is the same thing. We go to church for reasons way beyond our "love of God" no matter what bill of goods we sell ourselves. The Christian "church" strains to emphasize how important it is to go to church because if nobody went to church they would cease to exist. They say it is vital. The Bible says otherwise. But to accept the Bible's quote as it's meant means to threaten the church. So there is no way you, or any God-fearing Christian, will ever accept that. When it comes to spirituality, facts are meaningless when they fly in the face of desires.

Once again, the Mystics are unanimous on this in saying in public praying never equates to praying in private. That Biblical quote is no different.

You have a different take on it and that's great. We've now posted two different ways of seeing it and people can make up their own minds. And I have a hunch 99% of them will side with you.

.

[Shabd Mystic]

I don't know what formal studies you completed in religious matters, Lion6969, but if the upshot of it all is that you didn't learn that mystical experience is the originator of all the great religions, go get your money back, either the instruction you received is hopelessly inadequate, or just maybe you weren't paying attention !

But didn't you know? Mystical "experience" is just "imagination." After all, if "Lion6969" has never "seen it" then it can't exist. It's funny to see someone determining the "falsity" of God by himself playing God.

.

[Shabd Mystic]

The beauty of mysticism is that it requires nothing to achieve its goal, but the 'nothing' is also mandatory !

Awesome line! That's a keeper.

.

[MysticStrummer]

http://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/book-of-john.htm

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God (John 1:1). And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,

I know this was way back on the first page, but this answer has nothing whatsoever to do with the claims Jesus made about himself, which is what it was in response to.

As for Jesus being a yogi, ever since I began looking into eastern philosophy I've always felt that Jesus taught just like a zen master or buddhist priest. The theory that the missing years in the biblical account of his life can be explained by him leaving the area and going to study elsewhere fascinates me. I think he went east, learned about a different way of thinking, then came back and taught it in relation to more traditional beliefs closer to home.

[MysticStrummer]

There are several documentaries on Youtube that talk about evidence supporting the theory I mentioned above, including evidence that Jesus didn't die on the cross but instead returned to the east and died there many years later. I personally find that line of thought to be much more convincing than the traditional version, but that's another thread. Either way, what he had to say is the more important aspect of the story in my opinion, and the way he said it supports the original idea of this thread.

[Cosmic Radiant]

I wish I could keep up with all this and engage in these good conversations, but I don't get on here much. I am enjoying this thread a lot though.

Shabd Mystic, what do you think of the book of Revelations?

"Then I saw another beast, coming out of the earth. He had two horns like a lamb, but he spoke like a dragon. He exercised all the authority of the first beast on his behalf, and made the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose fatal wound had been healed. And he performed great and miraculous signs, even causing fire to come down from heaven to earth in full view of men. Because of the signs he was given power to do on behalf of the first beast, he deceived the inhabitants of the earth" (Revelation 13:11-14).

"He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended." (Revelation 20:3).

Also some references in Matthew.

"For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ, ' and will deceive many. … and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people." (Matthew 24:5, 11).

"For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect--if that were possible. See, I have told you ahead of time." (Matthew 24:24-25).

Dont get me wrong, I dont think you are being deceived. I just am truly interested in your interpretation of those scriptures.

[Habitat]

There are several documentaries on Youtube that talk about evidence supporting the theory I mentioned above, including evidence that Jesus didn't die on the cross but instead returned to the east and died there many years later. I personally find that line of thought to be much more convincing than the traditional version, but that's another thread. Either way, what he had to say is the more important aspect of the story in my opinion, and the way he said it supports the original idea of this thread.

Those Romans were very efficient killers, no hope of a crucified person surviving, IMO.

[+Paranoid Android]

Despite my already knowing that it was never going to do anything, i just can't help wanting everyone to find the incredible treasure that's just sitting there waiting to do for them a million times more the their wildest dreams could ever come up with. But people are much more concerned with telling me why they are "right" or i am "wrong" or why such things are completely "irrational." It confirms everything the great Masters have ever said about the human mind being the tool of Satan, but it still defies all logic to this very limited human mind.

And I can appreciate that view. But you need to consider that because you found "riches" through mysticism doesn't mean everyone else will. I wasn't always a Christian, I only became one after High School (maybe 19 or 20 years old, I don't remember the exact age). And for me, taking on this path has led me to my own riches that I equally wish everyone could participate in. It was like I was blind in High School but suddenly I was now able to see.

We all have our own views of what is "right" spiritually.

I believe your focusing on the wrong point. I think the word "hypocrite can be removed so that it says:

"When you pray, don't pray publicly on street corners and in the synagogues where everyone can see you."

The fact that He is using the hypocrites who pray publicly to make His point in no way says he is limiting His statement only to "hypocrites."

I guess we're just going to have to disagree with this. I do perhaps agree that there is no point praying aloud on "street corners", but in churches among fellow brothers and sisters, as long as the motives are godly and not selfish then God approves. After all, Jesus prayed with his disciples when they sat down to meal and he "gave thanks" (a religious term referring to thanking God in prayer before a meal). That's my understanding of Jesus' statement here. But as you say, we disagree on this.

With that said, I agree with large portions of the rest of your post:

If going to church to pray was solely about our love of God we wouldn't even need to go to a church. Praying at home and reading the scriptures at home is the same thing. We go to church for reasons way beyond our "love of God" no matter what bill of goods we sell ourselves. The Christian "church" strains to emphasize how important it is to go to church because if nobody went to church they would cease to exist. They say it is vital. The Bible says otherwise.

I totally agree that we can pray at home and read the Bible at home. I think this is an essential part of a Christian life. I also believe church is very important - however, probably not for the reasons that you think. The original meaning of "church" is not referring to an organisation or a building, it refers to a gathering of believers. Church isn't just about "love of God". It is equally about "love for our brothers and sisters in Christ". We shouldn't go to church just for ourselves (ie, "what can I get out of it") but we go to encourage and build up our fellow brothers and sisters. I think it is important to meet up with like-minded believers to encourage each other and build each other up. Church buildings provide an easy way of meeting up with like-minded people but they are not essential - we could just as easily meet in someone's home (such as the early Christians did). Attending a church building on Sundays is not vital, the Bible agrees with that. Meeting up with believers, that is another matter and is highly encouraged.

Does that make sense?

~ PA

Edited February 21, 2012 by Paranoid Android

[Beckys_Mom]

I believe your focusing on the wrong point. I think the word "hypocrite can be removed so that it says:

"When you pray, don't pray publicly on street corners and in the synagogues where everyone can see you."

The fact that He is using the hypocrites who pray publicly to make His point in no way says he is limiting His statement only to "hypocrites." If that was His point he would simply say "don't be a hypocrite and go out saying prayers in front of everybody when you don't even believe or follow my teachings."

He is telling us HOW to pray, not what we should be thinking while we pray.

Exactly, that is what I call a good and more logical explanation...He is giving advice and his opinion... I agree with him to be honest...For i personally do not pray just I can be seen, whether in a church or in the streets.. I like to pray in private...

Edited February 21, 2012 by Beckys_Mom

[Shabd Mystic]

And I can appreciate that view. But you need to consider that because you found "riches" through mysticism doesn't mean everyone else will. I wasn't always a Christian, I only became one after High School (maybe 19 or 20 years old, I don't remember the exact age). And for me, taking on this path has led me to my own riches that I equally wish everyone could participate in. It was like I was blind in High School but suddenly I was now able to see.

We all have our own views of what is "right" spiritually.

I'm not saying that anyone can't find riches in many different things. Riches are like beauty as they are in the eye of the beholder. No doubt Christianity has provided riches to many people. Some truly great riches for many.

In most Christian's view John the baptist provided great riches to those He baptized, but few would say that John provided anywhere close to the riches provided by Jesus. To any rational minded Christian anyone praising Jesus back then in no way would be denigrating John.

On a secular level, it's like thinking about your absolutely favorite band or musical artist and then thinking about maybe your 20th favorite. The 20th favorite is a great act and you would love to attend a concert or buy their new CD, but what you get from your absolute favorite band in no way can compare to it.

I'm not equating Jesus to Christianity. You need to try to separate the two just momentarily so you might understand my perspective better, and see what I'm trying to say (though I'm likely doing a poor job of saying it, I'll admit). If Jesus would be your "favorite artist" Christianity (by itself without Jesus) would be something along the lines of your 20th favorite. It by itself offers great things, but if Jesus "showed up," and in order to "have Him" you had to give up "Christianity," you would do so in a heartbeat.

Why? Because the "riches" offered by Jesus in no way can even compare to the riches you get from "Christianity."

I realize it will take a great mind for a Christian to even be able to separate the two, even momentarily, but if you are able to then you will at least understand the thinking that is behind my talk of "riches," even if you choose not to believe such a thing is even possible.

If you are able to understand that perspective, then perhaps you'll understand that what I am truly saying is that you have, right now, the "20th favorite act." What I am saying is that your "favorite act" is now playing though you don't even realize it nor believe it's even possible. And that act has riches available to you greater than ANYTHING you get from your "20th favorite act," or can ever hope to get.

You are clinging to your 20th favorite because of the great "potential" you believe they have, and everyone you know telling you they will turn into your "favorite act" once you die, as long as you continue to "believe" what they say. You are so enthralled with that 20th favorite (as are all Christians) that you won't even go look at that #1 act or even entertain the possibility that it could offer you anything, let alone anything greater than you already have.

Christians talk all the time about the "second coming" but never even consider the possibility that it might be happening right under their noses, only in a different way than the creators of the Bible had interpreted such an event.

As I've said, this isn't a choice of "either - or." Going to see the #1 act wouldn't mean you would have to drop the 20th best act. It would not interfere with the 20th act in any way. But the 20th act has a big problem with that. It is very threatened by such a possibility so it has spend centuries doing everything it can to prevent that possibility from ever occurring.

That's okay. The 20th act offers you some wonderful stuff. But faith that it will turn into the #1 act once you die is going to prove very disappointing, no matter what you've been told by "millions" of fellow believers. And once you are dead, it's too late to check out the #1 act that was there for you any time you were willing to even give it a glance.

I guess we're just going to have to disagree with this. I do perhaps agree that there is no point praying aloud on "street corners", but in churches among fellow brothers and sisters, as long as the motives are godly and not selfish then God approves. After all, Jesus prayed with his disciples when they sat down to meal and he "gave thanks" (a religious term referring to thanking God in prayer before a meal). That's my understanding of Jesus' statement here. But as you say, we disagree on this.

I probably "overdid" it as is my habit when I want to drive home a point. I, personally at least, don't believe there is any problem whatsoever with praying in a church as long as the motives are VERY much sided toward the "it's not about me" direction. The problem though is the human ego is such that one can never even recognize when that's the case.

I do have a "problem" with or "issues" with the idea that prayer could ever be the reading or reciting of text that someone else wrote.

True prayer comes from one's heart, not from a recital of someone else's text. That's very similar to you wanting my views of Paul and no one else's, even if they matched. But with prayer, even if you read the prayer and agree with what it is saying, it does you no good to recite it over and over again while attending church for 40 or 50 years. God already knows your "heart" and that's where your prayers are conveyed, even if they never reach your mind.

Instead of reciting prepackaged "prayers," a preacher should use that time to talk about how important "true prayers" are and maybe emphasize how you should "think" about such things when you are alone, and how you should spend time just thinking about God and trying to reach God (though very few Christian preachers will ever go near "meditation" as that has been a threat to organized Christianity since the beginning).

THAT, "reaching God," can ONLY been done by private "prayer" (which is all meditation is when it's done for a spiritual purpose). And THAT type of prayer is 1,000 times more important for you and more beneficial to you.

I totally agree that we can pray at home and read the Bible at home. I think this is an essential part of a Christian life. I also believe church is very important - however, probably not for the reasons that you think. The original meaning of "church" is not referring to an organisation or a building, it refers to a gathering of believers. Church isn't just about "love of God". It is equally about "love for our brothers and sisters in Christ". We shouldn't go to church just for ourselves (ie, "what can I get out of it") but we go to encourage and build up our fellow brothers and sisters. I think it is important to meet up with like-minded believers to encourage each other and build each other up. Church buildings provide an easy way of meeting up with like-minded people but they are not essential - we could just as easily meet in someone's home (such as the early Christians did). Attending a church building on Sundays is not vital, the Bible agrees with that. Meeting up with believers, that is another matter and is highly encouraged.

That's pretty much what i was saying when i talked about gathering with like-minded people and the "fence around crops." The only difference is that what i was saying had absolutely no "preachers" and no hierarchy of any type. There are no "donations" sought and therefore no chance of being corrupted by "mammon." I don't think of a church as a "building with a steeple." My next door neighbor had a "church" in his home every Sunday. But it wasn't just a "gathering," as he was the "preacher" and there was all sorts of power and control and ego and mammon issues, just on a very small scale.

The idea of "churches" is a wonderful one. The reality is a different thing on many levels, unfortunately. Churches can be a positive thing, but true worship happens only "one on one." You can go to church 3 times a week, and make all kinds of donations, and help in many ways, and still be a hypocrite (and many are just that). You can also worship at home and never step foot in a church and be 1,000 times "better" and more worthy in God's eyes.

But few Christians truly believe that and many believe they only need to show up for church once a week and maybe read the Bible for 15 minutes a night, and "try" to live their lives decently, and at death they will find treasure beyond belief.

Sadly, even those Christians who have led exemplary lives have not found treasures when they died, but none will EVER believe such "heresy" so I'm not going to belabor that point. They are happy with their "beliefs" and have no interest in anything that can be proven to them long before they die. As long as they are happy, who am I to question their sanity?

.

[Shabd Mystic]

I wish I could keep up with all this and engage in these good conversations, but I don't get on here much. I am enjoying this thread a lot though.

Shabd Mystic, what do you think of the book of Revelations?

"Then I saw another beast, coming out of the earth. He had two horns like a lamb, but he spoke like a dragon. He exercised all the authority of the first beast on his behalf, and made the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose fatal wound had been healed. And he performed great and miraculous signs, even causing fire to come down from heaven to earth in full view of men. Because of the signs he was given power to do on behalf of the first beast, he deceived the inhabitants of the earth" (Revelation 13:11-14).

"He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended." (Revelation 20:3).

I love Revelations. I know this will sound strange, but to me it's "fun." I only mean that I really enjoy it and all the speculation about it and the attempts to interpret it.

I don't want to get into "why" I feel the way I do, but I am convinced, with no doubt whatsoever, that Revelations is not what most Christians believe it to be.

Also some references in Matthew.

"For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ, ' and will deceive many. … and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people." (Matthew 24:5, 11).

"For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect--if that were possible. See, I have told you ahead of time." (Matthew 24:24-25).

Dont get me wrong, I dont think you are being deceived. I just am truly interested in your interpretation of those scriptures.

I particularly love this because even though Christ warns of "false prophets" and says that "I have told you ahead of time" not a single Christian ever saw that He could be referring to a man claiming to have fallen on the way to Damascus and "magically" being turned into a "prophet."

The world has been filled with false Christs and false prophets forever. Just the number in my own life time boggles the mind. It's gotten so that the second I hear the term "yogi" I think either "huckster" or someone who has made some decent spiritual gains but never came close to the "promised land." In fact, if there has ever been a "Perfect" yogi, I've never heard of him.

I'm a former investigative reporter who lived to 'expose" lies, and I happened to have been married for 15 years to a woman suffering from Borderline Personality Disorder. People with BPD have a LOAD of problems, but one of the biggest is that they are pathological liars. She once told me she doesn't know why she lies but she almost "has to" and that she often lies even when telling the truth wouldn't cause her any problems.

I'm just giving those examples to explain that calling me a 'skeptic" would be a vast understatement. I don't "believe" anything. I question everything. My wife used to send me emails when she had anything "important" to say even though we were sitting at computers in the same room, lol. I never gave her a hard time and when i didn't believe her, which was quite often, I didn't grill her or show displeasure, etc. She once told me that she sent emails because I was the only person she knew who she couldn't lie to because i could "see right through her."

I'm not trying to say I "know" things, lol. Not at all. I'm just saying that I am VERY "cautious." And the "bigger" any story is the more skeptical and cautious i become. And questions about God and MY salvation are the biggest questions possible. That's why I was raised a Christian and why I am no longer one.

If some supposed messiah showed up and walked across the water and raised the dead in front of my eyes I would immediately think "David Copperfield." If I was later convinced that those things really happened, I would immediately dismiss it because I would see it as clear signs of ego. I know that will throw a monkey wrench into the discussion but I am only sharing "my" beliefs.

I don't want 'wonderful stories" or hocus pocus. I need a whole lot more than that. A lot more. And an organized religion that tells stories about a dead Master that is jam packed with dogma and multiple inconsistencies and wild stories and even wilder promises, that then tells me to "watch out" for anyone who offers more than that and actually offers 100% proof of every word they tell you, and that has no dogma, and has no "financial interest," and actually rejects almost as many people who want to become "disciples" as it "approves" for being taught "the mysteries," and that has very strict 'requirements' having only to do with your own morality and "habits" and requires 2.5 hours minimum of daily meditation ... I'd say the choice would be obvious even if there was no indelible PROOF available.

Just "on paper," if one of the two choices was a 'scam," it would be blatantly obvious which one that was. And considering the second choice merely matches what was offered by the object of worship of the first choice before they completely obliterated His teachings with the help of "false prophets," there isn't even a slight possibility that the "first choice" is the better one.

But, of course, the human mind being what it is, and being totally in the control of who controls it, will never in a million years ever be able to see the truth unless they are "ready" to see it. And I promise you, if all of today's Christians were alive nearly 2,000 years ago, less than one percent of them would have ever been able to see that "this dude" called Jesus was any more than an elaborate huckster.

.

[Shabd Mystic]

Exactly, that is what I call a good and more logical explanation...He is giving advice and his opinion... I agree with him to be honest...For i personally do not pray just I can be seen, whether in a church or in the streets.. I like to pray in private...

Ya, it's a shame that the teachings of so many great Mystics have been so distorted and turned into far different things than the Mystics actually taught, but the great Mystics have often said that when they are alive their teachings are controlled by God but once they die they become tools of Satan.

We've seen clearly what such teachings turn into in the case of things like 9/11 and The Crusades, but those are merely blatant examples of it. In reality those teachings are used my him every single day in countless ways, but the most important way is in preventing anyone from discovering the Truth that's right at their fingertips.

.

[+Paranoid Android]

On a secular level, it's like thinking about your absolutely favorite band or musical artist and then thinking about maybe your 20th favorite. The 20th favorite is a great act and you would love to attend a concert or buy their new CD, but what you get from your absolute favorite band in no way can compare to it.

I'm not equating Jesus to Christianity. You need to try to separate the two just momentarily so you might understand my perspective better, and see what I'm trying to say (though I'm likely doing a poor job of saying it, I'll admit). If Jesus would be your "favorite artist" Christianity (by itself without Jesus) would be something along the lines of your 20th favorite. It by itself offers great things, but if Jesus "showed up," and in order to "have Him" you had to give up "Christianity," you would do so in a heartbeat.

Trust me, I get what you are trying to say. To use a really silly analogy, the Australian group aimed at kids - "The Wiggles" - recently announced that after several years in retirement the "original yellow Wiggle" Greg Page would be returning to the group. The Wiggles will probably become even more popular now because Page has now returned to his rightful place in the group. I understand that point.

What I'm not sure you are entirely certain about is that I also follow Christ. I see the point you are trying to get at, but there is implicit in your view that understanding the teachings of Christ is superior to the teachings of Christianity. From my point of view, the teachings of Jesus and of Christianity are the same, period full stop. Jesus' teachings are Christianity's teachings. But as we have already noted, we both disagree with this premise. So let's move along

I probably "overdid" it as is my habit when I want to drive home a point. I, personally at least, don't believe there is any problem whatsoever with praying in a church as long as the motives are VERY much sided toward the "it's not about me" direction. The problem though is the human ego is such that one can never even recognize when that's the case.

I do have a "problem" with or "issues" with the idea that prayer could ever be the reading or reciting of text that someone else wrote.

True prayer comes from one's heart, not from a recital of someone else's text. That's very similar to you wanting my views of Paul and no one else's, even if they matched. But with prayer, even if you read the prayer and agree with what it is saying, it does you no good to recite it over and over again while attending church for 40 or 50 years. God already knows your "heart" and that's where your prayers are conveyed, even if they never reach your mind.

1- first of all, I must totally agree. Prayer amongst believers can be great if the focus is "not about me". Second, I also agree that unfortunately the human ego can get in the way, though I don't think it always does or even is the primary response.

2- The second point, I once again entirely agree. I also have a problem with the idea that prayer could ever be the reading or reciting of text that someone else wrote. I don't agree with this. Prayer cannot be found in booklets written by an organisation. True prayer does indeed come from the heart, not from recital of text. I don't know what your experience of Christianity is, but since you bring it up it appears that your experience clearly includes large portions of recited prayer which is different to my experience. My view of prayer in a church context is entirely different. Perhaps this is due to the areas in which we live.

Instead of reciting prepackaged "prayers," a preacher should use that time to talk about how important "true prayers" are and maybe emphasize how you should "think" about such things when you are alone, and how you should spend time just thinking about God and trying to reach God (though very few Christian preachers will ever go near "meditation" as that has been a threat to organized Christianity since the beginning).

THAT, "reaching God," can ONLY been done by private "prayer" (which is all meditation is when it's done for a spiritual purpose). And THAT type of prayer is 1,000 times more important for you and more beneficial to you.

Several years ago the youth group I was helping at during that time held a Retreat for the leaders of the Youth Group to prepare and plan the upcoming year. But also we had training and devotional times. A major theme through the weekend was the concept of "wasting time with God". You would probably think of it as meditation - leaving our own ideas behind and simply spending time with the divine, for no other purpose than spending time with the divine. Instead of going to God just when we want or need something, just turn to God and spend time with him. "Waste time" with God, like we "waste time" with friends. I think this would be something similar to what you are suggesting here - meditate on god, simply because we can.

That's pretty much what i was saying when i talked about gathering with like-minded people and the "fence around crops." The only difference is that what i was saying had absolutely no "preachers" and no hierarchy of any type. There are no "donations" sought and therefore no chance of being corrupted by "mammon." I don't think of a church as a "building with a steeple." My next door neighbor had a "church" in his home every Sunday. But it wasn't just a "gathering," as he was the "preacher" and there was all sorts of power and control and ego and mammon issues, just on a very small scale.

The idea of "churches" is a wonderful one. The reality is a different thing on many levels, unfortunately. Churches can be a positive thing, but true worship happens only "one on one." You can go to church 3 times a week, and make all kinds of donations, and help in many ways, and still be a hypocrite (and many are just that). You can also worship at home and never step foot in a church and be 1,000 times "better" and more worthy in God's eyes.

But few Christians truly believe that and many believe they only need to show up for church once a week and maybe read the Bible for 15 minutes a night, and "try" to live their lives decently, and at death they will find treasure beyond belief.

Sadly, even those Christians who have led exemplary lives have not found treasures when they died, but none will EVER believe such "heresy" so I'm not going to belabor that point. They are happy with their "beliefs" and have no interest in anything that can be proven to them long before they die. As long as they are happy, who am I to question their sanity?

.

Believe it or not, I 100% agree with everything in this part of the post. Perhaps our ideas are not as divergent as at first thought??? I may perhaps point out that my experience with churches in my area have been godly experiences and not accounts where an "authority figure" demands we agree with them or else face hellfire. But overall, I have to agree with the premise raised.

You know what, I don't know whether you have noticed or not, but I've actually agreed with virtually every point you raised in this post. I may have tweaked something here or there, but not in any great way. The greater point is that I have virtually nothing to disagree with. Even in parts where you seem to be applying your own experiences (such as pre-written prayers that are recited during each service you seem to be familiar with). I'm starting to wonder how different we may be after all

~ PA

Edited February 21, 2012 by Paranoid Android

[Star of the Sea]

So if god and Jesus are one as you said. God died on the cross, how or what god is capable of dying from spear?

Aaaaargh Lion!!!! You know that I believe in the Trinity ~ God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spriit. Of course Jesus expired on the cross he was fully human! If you stick a spear in a human and nail them to a cross then they will most probably die! Jesus was God incarnate, he died, then his spirit left his body.... that's easy to understand is it not? What you are challenging is the belief that God came down from heaven, that's all! If you don't believe then what can I say?

[Shabd Mystic]

You know what, I don't know whether you have noticed or not, but I've actually agreed with virtually every point you raised in this post. I may have tweaked something here or there, but not in any great way. The greater point is that I have virtually nothing to disagree with. Even in parts where you seem to be applying your own experiences (such as pre-written prayers that are recited during each service you seem to be familiar with). I'm starting to wonder how different we may be after all

I enjoyed your post! Thanks for that.

As I get older I'm learning that truly spiritual people often have a great deal in common, thought-wise, regardless of their particular "religious" beliefs. I like when I experience that with someone else.

I just yesterday read The Sermon on the Mount again for the first time since I began following the mystical Path and I was quite stunned how it hit me this time as it was a PERFECT match for what the Masters teach on the Path I follow (though Christians don't usually see it all the same way and usually attach "interpretations" to things that, at least in judging by what the other Masters teach, were meant literally).

I might tackle that subject more in depth at a later time, but for now I just wanted to mention that I saw that what we were discussing was even better described in The Sermon on the Mount, particularly this (emphasis on the bolded part):

And when thou prayest,

thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are:

for they love to pray standing in the synagogues

and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men.

Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet,

and when thou hast shut thy door,

pray to thy Father which is in secret;

and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

To me, at least, it makes it very clear that "prayer' is to be done only "one on one." I feel that even if a preacher gets up in front of a crowd and asks everyone to pray for victims of a natural disaster or something like that, and then people either recite a pre-packaged prayer, or bow their heads and silently say a prayer, that's not what God, or Jesus, wants. I believe the above passage says that.

If the preacher asks people to say such prayers when they get home, then that's fine. Those who truly feel they want to pray will do so when no one can see them doing it. Those who don't care won't because they don't pray when there's nothing in it for them (being seen in church by many others as they pray). It's what happens in private that separates the real believers from the hypocrites.

I could very well be wrong on this, but I believe that's what it is saying and that the compilers of the Bible made yet another in a long list of errors when they failed to edit out that part because that is very "anti-church" (as is so much of the Gnostic texts that were ruled heretical).

Anyway, this perfectly sums up what we both feel regarding "pre-packaged" prayers:

But when ye pray, use not

vain repetitions

, as the heathen do:

for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

And I liked to see this, which was the same thing I'd mentioned earlier about true charity only being what is done anonymously:

But when thou doest alms,

let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:

That thine alms may be in secret:

and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.

It seems to say the exact same thing as it does about prayers. Charity should be done "in secret" (except when that's not possible, of course) because, like with prayer, any sense of "I" must be removed for it to be TRUE charity or TRUE prayer.

Just finding out how difficult it can be to give to charities secretly will show most people how much previous charity donations have actually been about "me." It can be quite surprising, and quite educational as well. But that's not something I or anyone who understands what Jesus was saying, wants people to understand because, unfortunately, donations to charities would all but dry up if people HAD to follow this. So in that respect, at least, ego is actually a "good" thing.

.

Edited February 22, 2012 by Shabd Mystic

[Shabd Mystic]

Fundamental Christians confront "God in human form" (my headline, lol)

This is a great article about when a group of fundamental Christians heard about a great Master who was considered by His 1.2 million followers to be equal in every way to Jesus Christ. (My very own mother was a disciple and, without going into all that, I'll just say I have TONS of reasons to agree with them.)

The most interesting thing about the "interview" is what was never mentioned but what happened constantly with Charan Singh (and his successor and predecessors), and that's how what always started out as something where you would expect there to be some "hostility" against Him, ended up being quite the opposite.

There are numerous similar stories where a group of members of one religion or another "confronted" one of these Masters (some in very large and unpleasant groups) and in the end it proved not only not to be that way at all, but the "opposition" groups often ended up being quite stunned by what they found. There were even many cases of people who had gone to confront Him ending up following Him.

I need to emphasize the point that these Masters NEVER claim to be what their followers know them to be. They are remarkably humble (genuinely so) and always refer t things by quoting what another Master has said, or by saying things like, "the Masters say ..."

This was actually published in the Christian group's own magazine.

The Teachings Of Jesus Christ - An Interview With Charan Singh

Publisher: UPDATE magazine, Danmark Editor: Professor David Christopher Lane

Editor's Introduction

The following interview, excerpted from the Denmark journal UPDATE, is unique in many ways. The late Maharaj Charan Singh of Radhasoami Satsang Beas was a highly revered saint in India, who felt that the essential teachings of Jesus Christ were misinterpreted by the present-day orthodoxy. Instead of looking for God within, he argued, they looked for God without. Instead of seeing the human body as the temple of the Living God, they built great edifices with elaborate altars. Instead of viewing Jesus as one of a number of great God-men, they made him and his teachings historically exclusive, ostracizing in the process all other great spiritual figures and their respective paths. On the other hand, the UPDATE group of Christians, who had gathered for a fact finding mission on religion in India, were Biblical Fundamentalists who felt that Eastern mysticism and the like had diseased much of Western culture with pseudo-gurus and regressive meditation techniques.

What we have here, then, are two views of spirituality; or, more precisely, two views of the teachings of Jesus Christ. One which is gnostic, radical, and essentially mystical; the other which is literal, orthodox, and essentially biblical. The basis for this dialogue is a bit skewed, though, since the Christians are using their text--a text which, as history has demonstrated, went through a number of political contests and revisions before achieving its present day status. Nevertheless, Charan Singh feels that the New Testament still contains key elements of Christ's teachings; teachings which he asserts dovetail with the findings of other great spiritual leaders, like Rumi, Kabir, and Nanak. The UPDATE Christian group, in contrast, does not see Jesus' teachings as part of the perennial wisdom of mankind, but rather as a singularly unique revelation in the universe about man's relationship with God. As such, Jesus is not simply a mystic among other mystics; he is, to them, the only Son of God.

The reader may at first think that this is a relatively new debate, belonging to the 20th century where the dividing lines between science and religion have now been clearly drawn. But that would be an inaccurate inference, for this debate between inner and outer authority, between mysticism and orthodoxy, between living masters and dead prophets has been with us since the beginnings of language. And it was certainly in full bloom during and after the time of Christ. In terms of political history, of course, the literalists won in championing their view that Jesus Christ was the messiah for all of mankind and that he, as the Son of God, conquered death by bodily resurrecting on the third day. The gnostic view, which included the concept that Jesus spiritually (but not bodily) rose from the dead, was suppressed in the early Christian Church for its mystical "heresy," despite the fact that the Gospel accounts themselves present contradictory evidence on the question of Jesus' resurrection.

So some twenty centuries later, in the midst of the greatest technological revolution known to humankind, we are still having the same debate over a figure who is, arguably, the most influential person in history. Will we solve the riddle? No, not to anyone's universal satisfaction, but at least the following dialogue clarifies the key issues distinguishing the two major views of Jesus Christ.

Haack: What is this teaching that all the mystics of the world teach?

Charan Singh: I will tell you the gist of it. There is one God, and there is a necessity to go back to him. Without going back to our Father, we cannot escape from births and deaths. The Lord is nowhere outside, he is in every one of us. And the Path leading back to the Father is also the same. In our body the seat of the soul and mind is here at the eye center (third eye). Our whole consciousness operates from here out through the senses, the nine apertures. Through these we are attached to this whole creation. And this is bringing us back to the creation each time after death.

Albrecht: You mean reincarnation.

Charan Singh: Yes. Christ said, "If you build your treasure in the world you will come back to the world; if you build it in heaven, you go back to heaven." If you are attached to this creation, you come back to this creation. If you are attached to the Father, you go back to the Father. So, unless you withdraw this consciousness back to the eye center, we don't come to the door of our house. Our spiritual journey starts from the eye center, upward. So we have to withdraw our consciousness back to the eye center. And after that you have to travel with that light and sound within. That is why Christ said, "If your eye is single, your whole body is full of light." We have to open this eye and see that light. With the help of that light, we have to find our way back to God. Christ said that spiritual worship pleases the Father. And that Spirit, that Holy Ghost, that Word, that Logos that is in every one of us is here at the eye center. Indian mystics have given Indian names, Christ has given his own name, Persian mystics have given their own name, but those who have travelled within on that path, they have the same message to give. They are not bound by any ritual, by any ceremonies; they don't have anything to worship outside of themselves, they only worship Him within.

Haack: In the Bible there is a special ritual given by Christ. It's the Lord's Supper, which is practiced by the followers of Jesus Christ.

Charan Singh: These rituals have come later on. These rituals have never been performed by Christ himself. They have come later on. That was the blessed food that he distributed to his disciples. It was no ritual at all.

Aagaard: The last night before he was betrayed?

Charan Singh: Yes. He blessed the loaf of bread.

Aagaard: He did say, "Take, eat, this is my body..."

Charan Singh: "This is my body," this is you see, what he said. "Unless you taste my blood and my flesh, you cannot be part of me." This is not the blood and flesh of the physical body, it is the spiritual body. You do not taste the blood and flesh of the physical body. They are spirit, the Holy Ghost. He said to his disciples, "You have come into me and I have come into you." No physical body can come into anybody else's physical body.

Aagaard: We speak about a spiritual body in Christian theology, that's correct. In the Christian tradition, the spiritual body, as far as I have understood it, is the body of believers in which the Holy Spirit lives, as in a temple. A community of believers is the temple of the Holy Spirit.

Charan Singh: That Holy Spirit is within every one of us, here at the eye center.

Aagaard: Why exactly at the eye center?

Charan Singh: Because the seat of the soul and mind is here at the eye center. "If the eye be single, the whole body is full of light."

Aagaard: Yes, I know that verse, but I have not understood it like that.

Charan Singh: And that light is the body of Christ. That light comes from the radiance of his spiritual body.

Alexander: Jesus seems to teach, and his followers definitely believe, that the basis of returning to the Father was forgiveness of sin, and that Jesus' death somehow was critical to establishing this forgiveness.

Charan Singh: You see, what is forgiveness? Forgiveness of what?

Alexander: Speaking in biblical terms, it was forgiveness of sin.

Charan Singh: Sin of individuals. You see, there is something standing between me and the Father. Unless that is forgiven, the soul cannot go back to the Father. That block is our sins, our karmas, our actions of past lives. Unless all that is forgiven, the soul cannot go back to the Father. It cannot shine, it cannot become whole. So we have to meditate, to seek that forgiveness.

Alexander: My question was, that in Christianity, or the biblical view of things, that forgiveness was based upon Jesus' death.

Charan Singh: You have to work yourself, to seek the forgiveness of the Father. Jesus has told you of a path. He has given you a teaching. He has shown you the way. You have to find that path, the way, and seek the forgiveness of your sins before you can go back to the Father. He said, "Repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand." Repent from what? You don't know what you have done (in past lives). How can you repent if you don't know what you've done?

Williams: Why don't we know?

Charan Singh: No question of why, but we don't know how we have offended. A child has not hurt any one; he is all love. Why doesn't he see God? We have gone through many years, so we can see what we have done. But what about the child? This is because of his past karmas, past sins. Those sins have become our master, and we have become their slave. Our soul has become the slave of those sins.

Williams: Following through on what you've just said, you realize the sins are in your past lives. So how do you achieve forgiveness for them?

Charan Singh: You see, all these sins have relationship to the mind. The soul is dominated by the mind. Mind is a slave of the senses. Being a slave of the senses, mind commits sins. And soul is dominated by the mind. So soul has to pay for all those sins. Unless the soul gets a release from the mind, soul can never become whole, soul can never shine. So we are to withdraw the consciousness to the eye center and attach ourselves to the divine light within. When mind is attached to that, it doesn't come through the senses at all. So when mind comes back to its own source, soul gets release from the mind. All the burden is lifted from the soul, the soul shines.

Williams: So then, after you've meditated and got forgiveness, then the reincarnation stops. So then what happens after you die?

Charan Singh: You go back to the Father. It is only our karma and sins that are pulling us back to this creation. When they are all finished, nothing can pull us back to this creation. If you are able to burn off your karmas by meditation during this lifetime, then you don't have to come back.

Albrecht: Regarding this question of karma, where did the first wave or impulse of karma come from? Did it begin within the Godhead itself?

Charan Singh: It begins the moment we have become part of this creation. Then the Lord has projected himself into this creation. As you read St. John, he said there was the Word before the creation, and the Word has made the creation. There is no difference between the Word and God. So before that, it was the creative power only, which you can call God. And that creative power has created the creation. So he has projected himself into the creation.

Albrecht: But that presents a moral and ethical problem. This creation is imperfect and fallen; there is evil in society and suffering in the world. Now, if this karma came from God, or was projected or emanated from his essence, then that implies that God is imperfect.

Charan Singh: No, God is not imperfect. But God has created this world imperfect. Unless the world is imperfect, it cannot exist. The moment anyone becomes perfect in the world, he goes back to the perfect one. We are only here as far as we are imperfect. And the point of our meditation is to become perfect. Christ said, "Go and sin no more, lest something worse befall you." Once you are on the path, you are in the process of becoming whole, perfect. Otherwise you will have to come back to this life again. But you have to become a shining example to others, then they also will follow you.

Pandit: What is the object of this human life?

Charan Singh: The object is to make ourselves perfect and go back to the Father. If you want to help society, that's a very different problem. So many reformers have come, so many mystics and saints have come, and has the society been reformed? You cannot remove the thorns from the world, but you can wear shoes so they will not affect you. The society will always remain the same. This world will always be imperfect; it will remain imperfect. But we can become perfect in this creation. We can wear shoes. You cannot solve the problems of the world, but you can rise above the problem; it doesn't affect you at all.

Pandit: So you come to the position of the Gita, where he who is a great yogi is above attachment.

Charan Singh: Yes. He is not affected by what is happening around him. He must be a spectator.

**** MY NOTE: The Gospel of Thomas ( #42) Jesus said, "Become passers-by." ****

Haack: So God is playing his own play in us?

Charan Singh: Yes, we are all puppets. We have no freedom--absolutely not.

Williams: Well then, why does one meditate?

Charan Singh: Because He wants us to meditate. We are not needed. If we had a free will, we would not have a part in his creation. Who would like to be away from the Creator and a part of this miserable creation? Did we have free will to come to this creation?

Haack: What does this mean? Can't we do anything?

Charan Singh: Absolutely not. Christ said, "Even the hairs on the body are numbered." How would you explain that? Would a few hairs less or more make any difference to you? He says even they are all numbered--even that little insignificant thing. We have limited free will, conditional free will, but not absolute free will.

Haack: Not absolute free will--only God has that.

Charan Singh: That's what I'm saying. There is no absolute free will. We have conditioned free will.

Aagaard: Does it mean that if we get rid of these conditions by means of meditation, then we will have gained our free will?

Charan Singh: No. Then you'll go back to the Father and you'll be living in his will. The question is: What is "you?" What you yourself call you is an ego, a mind. And when we limit the ego, the mind [that is, transcend them], then it is soul, which is a drop of the divine ocean. The purpose is to become one with the Creator, not to stay separate from the Creator.

Pandit: Is this unity in terms of identity or in terms of union?

Charan Singh: Call it anything. It's just a way of explaining it. You have your identity and yet you are separate from him. You lose your identity, you just become one with him.

Pandit: As my arm is my body, yet it is an arm...

Charan Singh: Yes, that's right. You see the waves in the ocean. They are part of the ocean, and yet you can say that they are different; but they are also the same thing.

Haack: Am I no longer aware of my own existence if I am one with him?

Charan Singh: Who wants to be aware of his own existence? It is only the ego who wants it. Lover always wants to become one with the beloved. Who wants to be a drop and not the ocean?

Haack: I take my human existence and identity, as a wonderful gift from the Creator himself, not to withdraw into extinction.

Charan Singh: You see, I will tell you. Lord worships himself through us. We are just puppets. He pulls us from within. Unless He shows us that path, that way, we can never go back to him at all. We are blind. A blind man can never get out of the darkness unless someone with eyes leads him out ot the darkness. So Christ said, "My sheep recognize my whistle."

**** MY NOTE: The Gospel of Thomas ( #34) Jesus said, "If a blind man leads a blind man, they will both fall into a pit." ****

Scott: You quoted two passages from the words of Jesus, and there are some other passages very close to those two passages. You talk about the inner light. Jesus said, "If the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness." You talked about Jesus as Shepard, and he talks about himself as being the only shepard. And he talks about other teachers being thiefs and robbers. Do you think Jesus was deliberately misleading people, or was mistaken? How do we put these things in context?

Charan Singh: People are twisting his teachings, I am sorry to say. He said there's a darkness within every one of us, and light comprehended it not. We cannot see that light because there's a darkness within, not anywhere outside. Everyone needs guidance. Christ got his guidance from John the Baptist. He said there is a man who has come from God whose name is John.

Scott: So John was Jesus' teacher?

Charan Singh: Yes.

Scott: I see.

Charan Singh: Absolutely. We may or may not accept it. You try to go a little deeper into the Bible.

Haack: I get the strange feeling that we will have to throw out all of St. Paul's letters which are in the New Testament. They say that there is only one light for the world, Jesus Christ...

Charan Singh: You don't have to go after St. Paul. Go after the teaching of St. John, St. Matthew, St. Luke. They are the ones who received direct teaching from Christ. Nobody took direct notes on what Christ said. Therefore we cannot take a verse like "the only son"--it might have meant "only the son"--that is, the way of all the mystics. I have written a commentary on Saint Matthew. I understand it, but I don't say I'm any authority on the Bible, because that's not my background, as you see.

Williams: . . . How can I control what I did in the years before when I didn't even know who or what I was?

Charan Singh: That's the purpose of the meditation. Christ said, "Repent, the Kingdom of God is at hand." We can't repent for what we don't know.

Williams: But can't I repent from this day, from this life, where I grew up from a child and know what I've done?

Charan Singh: You can only repent in the sense that you won't like to do anything that you think is bad, from this point on. But still, you don't know what you have done in the past.

Williams: The Christian attitude is that the moment we were born, we started off with a brand new soul and we were brand new creations from a loving Father.

Charan Singh: Christ said, "You take birth with your sins." In the Bible it says that you will have to come with your sins, along with your sins. Original sin. This is the concept of original sin--the sins you have committed in past lives. You have to come along with them. They have become your master. You have become their disciple.

.

Edited February 22, 2012 by Shabd Mystic