to admit that we're human and posses minds that weren't build to grasp the vast and immense reality of the spiritual world with any sort of completeness. At the same time as NO ONE can understand fully, each religion does understand, to the best of human ability, the culturally relevant aspects of the reality of GOD that have evolved over the generations. The things we believe are real--all of them--but on a much larger scale than we can fathom. THAT'S what it means to say all religions are one!
> we're human and posses minds that weren't build to grasp the vast and immense reality of the spiritual world
If indeed there is a spiritual world! Maybe there is, but to me it seems more improbable than probable. (Well, it depends on how you define spiritual. If we broaden the meaning to include music and early morning running in clean air, then I would say YES, there is a spiritual world.)
> THAT'S what it means to say all religions are one!
This is a 6-part series, and somewhere I know I do acknowledge that "New Age" is large umbrella term, and that my analysis doesn't apply to each group. So again, my focus is on those who believe that Divinity has spoken to us, and the Words have been Recorded (in one way or another).
They've developed into strictly structured religions that don't allow room for uncertainty, because as humans we are comforted by the idea that we have it all figured out, that we know the one true way and it is the only way. But the truth is all of them are right! There is only one way..we just make sense of that one way by simplifying it into a metaphor that we can grasp. The only way to understand what is meant by the idea that all religions are one, is to humble ourselves once and for all--
> They've developed into strictly structured religions that don't allow room for uncertainty, because as humans we are comforted by the idea that we have it all figured out, that we know the one true way and it is the only way.
> But the truth is all of them are right! There is only one way..we just make sense of that one way by simplifying it into a metaphor that we can grasp.
With your explanation, yes, I agree, and this makes sense.
But if you isolate your sentiment that "religions are all true metaphors," I feel that can be easily misunderstood into the equivalent of "The Divine dictated all these metaphors, the correct interpretation of which is The Truth!"
religion is simply a metaphor, a simplification of something that is far too vast for our human minds to grasp while we are here on Earth. We as humans yearn for explanations, to have an understanding of things. As a result we have, since the beginning of time (whenever that may be), been coming up with explanations for something that is outside the boundaries of our comprehension. They're just metaphors, defense mechanisms for coping with the anxiety that goes along with not understanding.
> religion is simply a metaphor, a simplification of something that is far too vast for our human minds to grasp while we are here on Earth.
My feeling is that if more people felt that way, the world would be a better place! But unfortunately, far too many people believe their holy books were dictated by god, such as the majority of Republicans running for the US presidency.
> They're just metaphors, defense mechanisms for coping with the anxiety that goes along with not understanding.
They're perhaps best understood that way, but I suspect (but certainly don't "know") that the ancient people who wrote them thought of them as defense mechanisms. They were writing down stories that had been passed down by oral tradition--probably a great many of the authors thought these stories were literally true.
same opportunity to know him? If someone is born into a culture that is different from yours, and has learned to be as loyal to their god as you are to yours, then how is it fair and just for that person, who believes wholeheartedly that THEIR path is the true path and has lived their life the best way they know how to, to be sentenced to eternity in Hell by your fair and just God? Religion is a huge contradiction of itself and the only way to make sense of it is to accept the fact that each
> Religion is a huge contradiction of itself and the only way to make sense of it is to accept the fact that
... well, to me, I make sense of it by concluding that people want answers to the questions of Creation & Design, the question of Suffering, Rules for Living, and the hopes of an afterlife. So different people contribute different ideas to different packages that are later proclaimed as Sacred Texts.
You can't dismiss the ideas of New Age spirituality based on the fact that you found some logical flaws and contradictions........Christianity and every other religion is absolutely full of logical flaws and contradictions, but they are disregarded and explained away based on the idea that all you have to do is have "faith" and follow the one truth path. If Christianity's God is fair and just, and the only way to come to him is through Jesus, then how come every person on earth does not have the
Hi Strykkerr, and my apologies for my delay in responding.
> You can't dismiss the ideas of New Age spirituality based on the fact that you found some logical flaws
I find that when a belief has deep logical flaws (Santa Claus, Christianity, etc.), that *is* a reason for dismissing it.
That being said, "New Age" is a very broad term, and from the rest of your comments, your particular interpretation DOESN'T contain the flaws I discuss in this video series.
That is, my criticism is more about those who believe that a Supernatural Being dictated Holy Words into various texts: and either those texts are different on purpose, or have been corrupted, or have been loosely emanated and interpreted via culture, etc.
Your approach, it seems to me, is closer to Deism ... and you combine that with noting that humans yearn for explanations, and then invent them.
> Christianity and every other religion is absolutely full of logical flaws and contradictions, but they are disregarded and explained away ...
Agreed! And true harm can come from fundamentalism in those religions, unlike New Age, which--as far as I can tell--has no fundamentalist wing to it.
(For the record, my belief is that a Creator is more improbable than probable. That makes me either an atheist or agnostic, depending on who's defining the terms.)
Why bother criticizing something you're not part of? If you have faith in your own way, then just GO your own way. There's no need to tear down other people's ways. I don't go around tearing down Christianity or any other religion. If you felt truly confident in whatever way you take, you would not need to criticize mine or any other.
> Why bother criticizing something you're not part of? If you have faith in your own way, then just GO your own way.
In real life, it's often considered impolite to criticize religious beliefs—so to maintain friendly & productive relations with my friends, co-workers, & neighbors, I rarely bring the subject up.
But don't you find that your own beliefs about ANY subject can be further clarified when you discuss them with others—when you exchange ideas and apply critical thought? And aren't religious beliefs a worthy enough subject to examine?
Because if what one of the Holy Books claims is really true, it's the most important subject there is! And if ALL religions are just man's guesswork, that's important to discuss too, especially since religious beliefs affect real life: gay marriage, stem cell research, the never-ending tragedies in the Middle East, Kashmir, etc.
But although people feel free to criticize each other's politics & taste in movies & so on, religion often puts up a protective shield around it. Thus if someone says "Sarah Palin would make a great president," everyone feels free to comment on it (pro or con), but if someone says "No I can't brush my teeth on Saturday because my Holy Book forbids ALL work on the Sabbath," we're all supposed to back off and say "Well it's religion so we can't question it."
Maintaining civil relations with those around us may restrict conversations about religion in everyday life, but here in the world of YouTube, there's no need for such restrictions. And when the issues are discussed politely & civilly (as I would like to believe is true for my videos), these discussions can even be productive. (Someone may decide that there really is no valid reason for persecuting gays, killing heretics, having dirty teeth on Saturdays, etc.)
> There's no need to tear down other people's ways. I don't go around tearing down Christianity
I'm not approaching people and telling them their beliefs are wrong. I just put out a video discussing what I see are the philosophical problems of the belief that multiple religions contain aspects of the Divine, and people are free to tune in or not.
Also, I'm not Christian: I see all religions as man-made phenomena. My belief is that a Creator is more improbable than probable, which makes me either an atheist (if you define "atheist" as "lack of belief in a god or gods") or an agnostic (if you define "atheist" as "There is no god!").
> If you felt truly confident in whatever way you take, you would not need to criticize mine or any other.
I don't believe I have the "whole Truth"—I just discuss the reasons for the conclusions I've reached so far. One of the great things about YouTube is that I can reach a wide variety of "subject matter experts" who correct my mistakes.
For example, I had put out a number of videos discussing how the pre-Christian religion of Zoroastrianism influenced the authors of the New Testament. Several experts on Zoroastrianism, however, contacted me to let me know that although Zoroastrianism pre-dates Christianity by centuries, all the ancient Zoroastrian texts have been lost to history—
—so given that all our extant Zoroastrian texts were recorded centuries AFTER the New Testament, we can't know for sure whether Zoroastrianism influenced Christianity, or whether Christianity influenced Zoroastrianism.
Subsequently, I made two follow-up videos acknowledging my error.
It's for this same reason that scientists publish results of experiments: they want to see if their conclusions can stand up to scrutiny or not. Criticism of my conlusions is 100% welcome!
I agree—but when it comes to monotheism, the message of the so-called Holy Books *is* "I'm OK, you're not OK." Yet New Agers will still insist that utterly incompatible religions really are compatible: a task accomplished only via philosophically incoherent means.
But if "all's well that ends well," I suppose I should just keep my criticism of New Agers to myself!
Fine approach.I just got an idea.The different paths are the same as far as it serves the ( high ) priests,cult leaders & other profiteers keeping us below them as lambs for the slaughter. We are the non initiated,they are the inner circle.Unfortunately for them we are waking up ( slowly ) Their old ways ( New Age is older than you think ) of spellbinding us ( 9-11) will fade.With internet we can clear each others mind,so our hearts can glow in a fine way.Going to your next video.Bless you !
> Religions are PROBLEM. Not just the idea that all religions are the same.
Agreed ... but the fundamentalist's belief "my religion is right, everyone else's is wrong" is problematic for different reasons than the New Ager's belief of "All religions are One!" ... which is why I have different videos for each subject.
"New agers believe all religions are one" is simply not true. It's a sweeping generalization. Most new agers I know (which is quite a lot) don't care one way or the other about religions at all. They all know that it's obvious they have similarities and dissimilarities.
> "New agers believe all religions are one" is simply not true. It's a sweeping generalization.
True, and I acknowledge this in Part 3: that the umbrella term of "New Age" encompasses a wide variety of beliefs (there's certainly no "New Age pope" to set the rules). It's difficult to capture nuances in a title, so I was generalizing to draw attention to the common New Age anti-fundamentalist notion that there's not just One Truth that everyone must follow dogmatically.
> They all know that it's obvious they have similarities and dissimilarities
Yet it's also common for people who define themselves as "spiritual" rather than "religious" to say that the similarities are where we can find aspects of God in multiple religions. Thus lines such as Gandhi's "Religions are different roads converging upon the same point" are often quoted.
The end result of globalization and increased communication between all humans will eventually lead to either the synthesizing of all religions into one or the obliteration of religion altogether. This I believe: before the age of world trade and exploration, local cultures responded to their environments and their religion reflected their immediate circumstances, but we see how various cultures have similar themes in their religions although they never knew of one another.
@Wyrdmaven These unique cultures with their traditions and customs had a more visceral and profound relationship with their world and naturally developed an understanding (not belief) in all the layers of reality besides the material, superficial. There is not atheism in indigenous peoples. They had a direct relationship with their world at all levels, including their "gods." They experienced gnosis as a fact of life. But then the world shifted.
@Wyrdmaven World trade and increased communication along with the growth of world empires led to the sharing of temporal ideas and technology increased and especially in the western world, empires spread out and committed genocide on a physical and cultural level and Xianity was the carrier of the virus of materialism. Shiny matter took the precedent, people left their ways (often by force) but became spiritually incompetent and we trapped in a new, foreign cultural identifier.
@Wyrdmaven Today we see from the Xian right for example fear, paranoia and anger as they see with globalization the sharing of what cultural ideas remain as a threat to their "religion" while they are also trapped in materialism and do not have a real spiritual understanding. the move toward the New Age ways is a stumbling attempt (as is Wicca and paganism/heathenism) to have a richer and profound spirituality that is not based on faith/belief but experience.
@Wyrdmaven The primary cornerstone of the more enlightened and intellectual strain of Wicca is to keep acquiring knowledge, both spiritual and otherwise, and to decide for one's own self what to belive. Find what works, live & breath it, cut out the fat.
I believe the practitioners you're referring to are what they dirissively dub "insta-wiccans", the one's sucked in by the earth-worshipping shtick and skimp on the metaphysical legwork.
> The end result of ... increased communication between all humans will eventually lead to either the synthesizing ... or the obliteration of religion altogether ...
I remain continually surprised that the obliteration option hasn't yet occurred!
> Could it be that there is a lot more going on here then religions and science can understand yet.
Science acknowledges that there are mountains of areas it doesn't understand yet. And in all those areas, it confesses "I don't know." Religion, on the other hand, makes up answers and says "I DO know, and I'm eternally correct." And when it has the political power to do so (Christianity in the Middle East, Islam in Muslim countries today) ...
... religion violently oppresses anyone who dares to challenge its claims.
> And maybe religions were all human inventions to help us understand this.
I agree that religions are all human inventions. But I don't think most religions express the idea that "there's more going on than we can understand." Quite the contrary—most religions are full of made-up answers they claim come from the Almighty, explaining Creation, Suffering, Rules for Living, and the Afterlife.
> Maybe they were party created because we all fear death and they provide comfort.
Yes, I agree. But once religious people gain power, they can also provide terror.
> And partly created by people of authority to control the masses through fear.
I see the "control" thing as a side-consequence of religion—people make religions up to provide answers, and once those answers become set in a formal structure with hierarchies . . . well, power corrupts!
You read scriptures from 3 Ancient religions & yet you call their concepts "New Age." Their concepts R not "New Age", they R ancient; timely parts of Progressive Revelation. "New Age" is just what you said: a mix-and-match! What you did not mention is that "New Age" is extremely SUPERFICIAL study of the cultural reasons for the Ancient Prophets of World Religions. The answer is to read & understand the Old Prophets, or talk to real scholars who have done so. Don't try to learn from twinkies.
> You read scriptures from 3 Ancient religions & yet you call their concepts "New Age."
I use the term "New Age" as a convenient umbrella term for the notion that all (or at least most) religions stem from the same Divine source. I know the idea itself is not modern, but it's particularly prevalent in today's popular press. So the term "New Age" is convenient and relevant, albeit not 100% accurate.
Regardless, I don't say ancient religions are New Age.
> Their concepts R not "New Age", they R ancient; timely parts of Progressive Revelation."
By "progressive revelation," do you mean that you believe there's One God who gave humankind religions that got progressively better?
That this One God started out with nature religions; progressed to, say, Hinduism, moved on to Judaism, took a detour with Buddhism & Jainism, moved on to Christian, Islam, Sikhism, Mormonism, Scientology, etc.?
> New Age" is just what you said: a mix-and-match!
Yes, we both agree on that.
> What you did not mention is that "New Age" is extremely SUPERFICIAL study of the cultural reasons for the Ancient Prophets of World Religions.
I believe I DO say that—"New Age" cherry picks feel-good passages from religion to religion, limits the scope to only those sentiments reflected in other religions . . .
. . . and comes to a superficial conclusion that "All are One." That's why this 6-part series is called "*PROBLEMS* with ... New Age spirituality ..."
> Don't try to learn from twinkies.
This series is NOT a defense of New Age. Rather, it's a critical look at the most common rationalizations that New Agers use to justify the "All are ONE" belief, and why none are philosophically coherent.
"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is." —Albert Einstein
> I personally like Spinoza's concept of "god" in his philosophical approach without the determinism accentuated.
I confess to not knowing a great deal about Spinoza's concept of god -- but from a quick google search, it seems that he would agree that organized religions are all just human guesswork about god. That is, they're 100% human: no "divine truths" (outside of what one would normally expect from human literature).
@ToddAllenGates You are correct my friend, God as suspending of nature itself, the characteristic of intelligent creation is latent on its design, the creator is far to complex to remount on outlining a limited figure in regards of human values, imagery or judgement, for it is to grand for us to see it in a singular representation, if the manifestation was perceivable- then it would be judgmentally viable- the very tangency would negate the scale of such a complex proportion.
@ToddAllenGates The concept of "god" could not be seen as a positive or negative in definition, because it is both in nature- its balance, the very nature that it is designed to manifest the environment of creation and its respective learning process to take place in all scales possible and unimaginable.
@ToddAllenGates The problem with his work is that he beleives everything is predetermined, he is surround with the notion that there is no free will and than nature govern us through natural limitations that are manifestation of the creator, like the way we respond to natural events, gravity, and that we have an identification because we adopted it by earlier developmental programming (parents, genes, external influences) But I really don't subscribe to that absolute determinism.
@ToddAllenGates Life can be both determinist in perception and random in its presentation, the inclination of either one is absolutist in idealization -for there is no coincidence nor random event in the singular projection, the duality is intrinsic in nature, it is a perceptual self-identification for something more than anthropocentrically measurable. How you respond to the nature of determined events are a very window of free will in which your actions can be measured.
Measured under rational stance, I believe the "gods" of earth culture texts were misunderstood and somehow misinterpreted notion of other high intelligent beings in the past. Not necessarily a "god" but a possible cosmic brother, or more developed being that manifested in such way that we believe them to be a god of creation, It has happened before on civilizations here, like the arrival of Spaniard conquistadors to the indigenous civilizations/groups of America & caribbean.
since you were attacking the notion that all religions are pointing at the same thing(usually a favorite christian pass time) I jumped to conclusions. My bad. I probably dont really have an issue here. You are trying to understand the religions logically and their logic is not what unites them. The experience one has from an honest practice is what unites them. The kingdom of heaven, nirvana, satori, rapture, are all different terms for the same experience. That is how they are one.
> The kingdom of heaven, nirvana, satori, rapture, are all different terms for the same experience. That is how they are one.
This particular video series is a long one, but toward the end I discuss how the perspective you take is the only one I don't see a logical flaw in. The defenses for "all religions are One!" that I find problematic are those that make claims such as "God inspired intra-religious contradictions on purpose to expand your thinking," etc.
from my understanding, since God/ultimate reality stuff isnt logical, when a true teacher is teaching he will use what ever words necessary to steer people towards it. This differs from culture to culture and with time, hence the different religions. While the teacher is alive, he can correct them and keep them from having weird misunderstandings, but after he dies, if not enough of the students grasped what he was saying, it just falls apart into dogma and bigotry.
This assumes, of course, that there really has been "true teachers"!
Also, perhaps this is just the result of my limited mindset, but it seems to me that *if* there was some sort of personal god out there, "He" would comprehend how limited we are, and be able to get down to our level and communicate in a clear & consistent manner--something that would look nothing like our current assorted mess of organized religions.
There have been true teachers...and f'ed up followers for the most part. I'm not arguing there is a personal God. Belief in that is a stage of development some people have to go through. I'm with you 100% on all the crazy shit people have made up.... I'm just saying that don't let the retard's made up take on spirituality convince you there is nothing to it. Sam Harris explains the mystical experience in atheist terms pretty well if you are interested in investigating that.
But the atheist community and people like Pat condel spend all their time showing how retarded all the retards are. Yippee! Whoop de f'ing doo. I think in the past 5 years you have all proved your point. There's nothing left to say. Time to move on to exploring new levels of understanding/spirituality/consciousness/brain states/ego/etc. The atheists/theist debate is really getting old. Not that I dont appreciate your efforts. They are probably necessary.
That is why in most religions, the founder/main teacher never writes anything down(Jesus and Buddha for example). All the words are not true or misleading to most people.
I'll find some time to get though all 6 parts of your video and let you know what I think.
From a certain reference frame/reality tunnel/level of consciousness, we are all God. We ARE the universe. That is the mystical experience common to all religions. You can call it a hallucination if you want, but that is the end goal. The whole universe supports us just as much as our brain or heart... so in a way we did make all the intra-religious contradictions ;-)
The personal God thing is a pretty Gross misunderstanding of that idea.
"You think you hold the divine wind of God in some verbal truth box and you've wound up with stale air.
I don't think you watched my video! As an atheist, I would certainly never say anything like "such & such is a Truth from God"
That comment wasnt directed at you at all. IT was directed at the maker of this video? You getting enough sleep? ;-) Notice the @toddallengates at the start of it....
> @BlasphemyPiano That comment wasnt directed at you at all. IT was directed at the maker of this video? You getting enough sleep? ;-) Notice the @toddallengates at the start of it.
Sorry, my bad. BlasphemyPiano is one of my other accounts, and I forgot that I was logged into it. Just to make things clearer, I've deleted all the comments from my BlasphemyPiano account and replaced them with the same comments from my ToddAllenGates channel.
Again, my mistake ... I have four accounts (ToddAllenGates for religion, ToddGates for piano & blues harp, ToddAllenGates2 for the relationships between work / money / happiness, and BlasphemyPiano for piano accompaniments to Nick Gisburne's "Blasphemy!" book), and I sometimes forget to check to make sure I'm responding from the correct channel.
Thats totally fine. When I say god or creator I am, in my mind, referencing something beyond words. Something only experientially known. So definitions are kind of pointless. I'd say agnostic is the safe bet. Trust what you know and have seen and be open to seeing or knowing new things. But never go against what you feel to be true.
You know why these ideas disagree with you? you get your spirituality from words, books and concepts. Why bother criticizing. The all is one is based on the experience of it. Not the logic behind it. Good luck in your quest to find God with logic. You'll need it.
Basing one's belief on "experience" leads to thousands of conflicting claims: such "experiences" back up the Exclusive Truth of Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc. But they can't all be true: Jesus can't be "the only way" and "not the only way."
Human logic isn't perfect, but it's still a safer bet than emotion when it comes to discovering reality (e.g. the logic behind vaccinations vs. the emotion that "God will heal").
Um, if you're going to go down that path good luck with ever grasping anything important in Christianity. Logically, Jesus cant be fully human AND fully God. God cant be 3 parts and only one at the same time. God cant logically have existed before time thought and concept but he did. Your faith is full of logical contradiction just like anything else. Worldly paths can conflict when dealing with spiritual truths that are beyond words. The word is never the truth.
> God cant be 3 parts and only one at the same time...Your faith is full of logical contradiction just like anything else
Hi Mr. Kurt,
My belief is that the existence of a Creator is more improbable than probable. So whether that makes me an atheist or agnostic depends on your definitions for those terms, but regardless, I'm not Christian! So I have no problem recognizing the incoherence of Christianity.
You make all these videos about words and concepts and its just all total BS. God is infinte and completely beyond words. All our words thoughts and concepts can do it point us at God. Think of the words as signs. They can be different shapes for different cultures and different people. Their shapes conflict and that's totally fine, they aren't god. They arent salvation. They are pointing you to it and what ever gets your attention is the best sign for you.
> God is infinte and completely beyond words. All our words thoughts and concepts can do it point us at God.
I should just add here that although I see the existence of a personal Higher Creator as improbable, I have no argument against those who believe but see God as infinite and beyond understanding. My main argument is with those who believe they *know* God's will: that "He" hates gays, invented the caste system, wants men's beards to be a certain length, etc.
Your spirituality is pale and flaccid and devoid of mystery. You think you hold the divine wind of God in some verbal truth box and you've wound up with stale air. If you ever do convert someone with your empty logic and make them think they have come to any understanding of the transcendent God you have injected spiritual poison into their veins that will probably not come out in this life time. But what ever, you hold the truth, right? feel free to keep doing it.
> This isnt new age. Abrahamic faiths are the only ones that arent on board with these ideas
I acknowledge that "New Age" is not the perfect title--for example, I know many Unitarians who agree with the "many paths, one destination" idea but who would never call themselves New Agers. But this philosophy is very diverse, so I couldn't find anything all-encompassing ... Veritas48 called it "Oprah-theology," but I don't think that's any better.
If one considers religion as the attempt to control natural events by controlling the spirits/deities allegedly controlling those events then, indeed, all religions are one.
Prayer, crystals, auras, horoscopes, tearing out the hearts of virgins, etc., all promise the same end: CONTROL and the ever elusive freedom from fear.
> If one considers religion as the attempt to control natural events by controlling the spirits/deities allegedly controlling those events then, indeed, all religions are one
Agreed. (But of course, when New Agers say all religions "are one," they don't mean "all wishful thinking"!)
Just watched it. Nice overview, but it only glossed over the subject of why a Creator would inspire utterly contradictory religions--religions with ideologies so incompatible that people kill each other over whose religion (and which version of which religion) is correct.
But this is a subject we've already discussed at length, so I don't think we'll get anywhere by rehashing it!
I think this would have been better with minimal quotations. There's so many that it's hard to hear the true point in all this because I'm not hearing the individuals own perspective or true passion, in fact I'm missing it (in a way) entirely. Also I have to beg to differ on All Religions Are One. While I can hold to "All Gods are One God" the religion thing is a bit hard to swallow. While there are many religions that wish for betterment and good will, what of the ones that mean ill will 2 all?
> Also I have to beg to differ on All Religions Are One.
Hi Guinevere,
We actually *don't* differ—I have the phrase "all religions are One!" in this video's title, but this video series is about the *problems* with this belief.
This series looks at the five different approaches that New Age theologians and philosophers use to defend their "all religions are One" belief, and why I believe that NONE holds up to scrutiny.
Ah okay, I was unaware that that was the issue being "addressed". I know at times I pick misleading or Puny titles to catch peoples attention so good job on grabbing your audiences attention in this regard.
A Sloka from Veda: Ruchinam vaichitryad rijukutil nana path jusham; nrinam ekogamyastvamasi pyasamarnavmiti"
("Due to the differences in individual dispositions, people follow different paths, but you are the only destination of all of them, just as the sea is the destination of all the waters").
First, my apologies for not responding earlier (work & family demands have left little time for YouTube lately), and second, thanks for your contributions toward my understanding of Bahaism.
> The Islamic Dispensation lasted until the advent of the Bab in 1844
Why do you think it is that so many Christians and Muslims that don't recognize the Bab as a representative of God's Will? After all, there are some 2.1 billion Christians and 1.5 billion Muslims, but only around 7 million Bahaists—most people I talk to are either only dimly aware of Bahaism or never even heard of it.
Even if I were to wholeheartedly accept the premise of a "Higher Power" (based on the First Cause and Intelligent Design arguments), I would still find the arguments made by theists—namely, that "God" has communicated with us through such & such religion—unconvincing.
Any God who was breathtakingly intelligent & competent enough to single-handedly designing creation (solar systems, babies that can breathe inside & outside of the womb, etc.), would, I think it stands to reason, would also communicate with us humans via a breathtakingly intelligent and competent manner.
But the chaotic smorgasbord of the world's religions offer no such thing—each is 100% explainable as the creation of man alone, and reflects man's ignorance, wisdom, cruelty, and compassion. A mixed bag, yes: just what we would expect of man as he struggled in the pre-scientific age to find answers for explaining creation, suffering, rules for living, and to comfort (and terrify) himself with tales of the afterlife.
Because, as you, they deny the reality of other religions. They do not apprehend the oneness of God and the oneness of religion, revealed gradually, eternally.
There must be a beginning to this new Revelation. After less than 200 hundreds years, 7 M is very good. If you would reflect the reality of the Baha'i teachings instead of trying to reject them with mere opinions, it would help to expand its membership. Being so many to refuse God's Messenger, you all contribute to the situation.
> After less than 200 hundreds years, 7 M is very good.
Seven million may be very good for something man-made, but I would expect more if it really came from an Omniscient Omnipotent Deity who wanted to make "His Word" known. Maybe something like all 6.6 billion within a day or two. I hope I don't sound sarcastic, because it's not my intent. I just sincerely expect more from Omnipotence.
> you're sort of missing the point of the "all roads" theme. no new ager will ever dispute that they contradict one another. Democrats and republics contradict one another but they all serve to better the country, yes?
If you're a secular New Ager who thinks of different religions as just different people's attempt to make sense of the cosmos and to pass on wisdom, then yes, I agree:
contradictions between different religions are just as expected as between Democrats and Republicans (and even between Democrat & Democrat / Republican & Republican).
But in this video series I'm specifically analyzing the type of New Ager who thinks that every religion (or at least every popular religion) came from the Same Source.
So rather being analogous to different messages coming from different Democrats, this particular type of thought is saying all these clashing religions come from the SAME single politician.
So why does this One Single Source give clashing instructions in different times and places, and issue forth instructions so open to interpretation that even followers of the same faith will fight and kill each other over (Catholic vs. Protestant; Sunni vs. Shiite, etc.)?
You make a very well thought out and thorough analysis.
Personally, I view God as an amorphous ether that exists within and without of the physical world. the phenomenon that i feel during meditation. I believe that when people have a similar connection with the mystical realm of the mind, they glean insight about the philosophy of reality that cannot be gained without feeling this ether.
the problem with religion is that it tries to label and this amorphousness and package it into an idol.
however, in saying that, religion has felt what i feel, and even though theyre trying to understand "that which makes the tongue speak yet cannot be spoken by the tongue," something which can never be labeled and understood, the feeling of this thing, call it god if you want, is capable of inspiring wisdom
> the problem with religion is that it tries to label this amorphousness and package it into an idol.
And tell us that this amorphousness wants to us to do things like outlaw gay marriage and stone adulteresses and have "outcastes" obey the restrictions of the caste system.
> You make a very well thought out and thorough analysis.
If the men who worship ice condemn the men who worship vapor, the man who worships nothing can find water in both. its not the beliefs of the religion that are important, because they were created by man, its the fact that they feel what i feel and see what i see that creates the common ground. I don't particularly see the relavance of their specific beliefs because they are man-made, just like the words of socrates and confucius, that doesnt mean they don't hold weight.
For one thing, there is no concensus whatsoever upon the stoning of the aldulterers in the Islamic world. It is a practiced by the most fanatic, perverted Islamic factions. Mumammad did not enact such legislation. It is nowhere in the Coran. This French article is very informative on the question : "Adultère et lapidation - Ce que disent les textes !"
We should never confuse the Source with the muddy waters of superficial thinkers and their personal agendas. Religion is too serious a matter.
This law is unvalid at this time in humanity's history, from whatever source it comes from.
But first, we have to make sure the Coran itself clearly set that law in black and white.
Secundo, we have to acknowledge the end of the Mohammedan Dispensation at the appearance of the Babi Dispensation on May 19th 1844. Google "The Mission of The Báb: Retrospective, 1844-1994" by Douglas Martin.
for our own security in this world and the worlds to come, we must confide the establishment of the rules to God, not our own puny self. That's what faith is. Being sure that God ask of us what is best for our physical, mental and spiritual development. He is the Omniscient. We must humbly differ, comprehending why or not. Knowledge comes not only with reflection, prayer and meditation but with practice. The more we act according to God's laws, the more we understand and are at peace.
Allen, we progress along the path. We were children then youth as humankind. We are now attaining adulthood. Thus, certains laws vary from time to time (religion to religion) being nurtured like babes, infants then mature persons. We learn. We conquer our physical nature to the point of letting go of all that impairs the enfoldment of our inner, spiritual reality. This reality, we don't know much about without being in touch with it as certain mystics and saints are. Being that ignorant...
As well, certain disciples, saints and seers reflected God's light into the world, their hearts being very pure. To these last we say thank you, but do not attribute the station of prophethood.
Each great Prophets have their own set of teachings and laws. Smaller ones explain what's in them, why it is so. They help us to comprehend.
The founders of religions have always announced the coming of another great one in time, this great Covenant between God and humanity being eternal.
As mentionned earlier, the divine Prophets are founders of world religions, namely : Krishna, Abraham, Zoroaster, Moses, Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad, Bahá'u'lláh. These are not only great philosophers, profound mystics and highly knowleageable persons, but they possess an innate nature different from that of ordinary man.
There were also smaller Judeo-Christian prophets like Isaiah which were not founders of religions but represented great poles along the path towards God. (...) 1/2
There's an article in today's NY Times called "Extremism Spreads Across Indonesian Penal Code," and that accused adultresses face death by stoning. The Shariah police have a good case for this: it's God's Law as expressed in the Koran.
You *do* believe the Koran is one of God's Sacred Texts, right?
So isn't it best to abide by God's Law and stone these women to death?
If not, why not?
Where's the update where God says "I changed my mind on this law."
The real teachings of Krishna are lost for the most part. What is left is mostly superstition and idolatry. In fact, each of these idols represent one aspect of the divinity, a special virtue or divine power. Listen to my playlist on Prophet KRISHNA and the other ones. You might start to understand the unity of divine revelation.
Scientology is not a religion, not even a sect since not being divine in origin. It's, at the most, a dangerous kind of biofeedback therapy.
> Scientology is not a religion, not even a sect since not being divine in origin.
No argument here!
But earlier you did say that the root of all religions is the one true God. On what basis do you exclude Scientology? What about Mormonism and Nation of Islam? On what basis can we say that these religions fall into the "made by God" or "made by man" category?
We must distinguish between seers and Prophets sent by God. You confuse them. Major religions are in reality one since being progressive in revelation.
Christians as well as Jews and Mohammadans have to recognize the Prophets coming before and after their own Prophet. They come from the same Source but their social messages differs, corresponding to the conditions of the time they appear.
See it as first school grade, second, third and so on. They always add to our spiritual knowledge.
> See it as first school grade, second, third and so on.
The knowledge imparted in school follows a clear logical progression: start with addition and the alphabet; move on to multiplication and writing; and move on to trigonometry and great literature. No subsequent lesson contradicts an earlier lesson—each builds upon the other.
But subsequent religions contradict each other flatly. As one example of *thousands,* Hinduism (3-4000 BC), Christianity (100s AD), Islam (600s), Mormonism (1800s) bounce back and forth between the notion that Jesus is necessary for salvation.
Unlike first-second-third grade, each religion says it alone has The Divine Truth and all the rest are dead wrong: dreadfully and *eternally* wrong. It's only via cherry-picking that you can say different religions are harmonious.
For you, what's your most reliable way of knowing God's Will? Take something like homosexuality. Christians & Muslims tells us God condemns it; Hindus and Buddhists (for the most part) tolerate it.
Which religions have it right and which are wrong—and how do you know?
You must understand that God has made a Covenant with humanity since the start : He will send a new Prophet each time it is needed, be it by growth or decay and our role will be to obey. Always have people been given the time to adjust to the new Covenant and play their role. If they don't, it is their will. God is not unjust nor His Messengers. If you discern with the eyes of the heart, you will understand that destruction of what is of no further use is not wrath but progress.
Yet many alleged "sacred" commands flatly contradict each other. I cannot obey the Hindu sects that command "Worship idols!" and Islam's command "DON'T worship idols!"
If God sends out new prophets as needed, does that mean recent religions supersede earlier ones? Does this mean Scientology is the more accurate than Buddhism: that our suffering is caused not by our unreasonable desires but by the evil space alien Xenu?
It seem antithetic ? God has a unifying project for humanity.
A certain time is given to accomplish this goal.
Every soul is endowed with the capacity to recognize the importance of the command and respond accordingly. Once the time over and the reply being negative, the law of justice applies. In some such chastisements, good fate for the pure in heart is preferred over good fate for the rebellious. Each Prophet comes to accomplish his part in this progressive process.
The Root of all the world religions is the one true God. Their spiritual teachings are the same or complementary, expanding our knowledge with each new Gospel. The social laws are abrogated or adjusted by each new Messenger according to the needs of the time. In short, One God, one Religion, one Humanity recognizing itself as one tree.
>I could not agree more, all paths do not lead to God
I personally feel that the evidence points to the conclusion that *all* religions stem from nowhere but man's imagination.
But our one area of common ground is that I agree that IF there really was a Creator out there who wanted to communicate with us, it would certainly make more sense to provide directions via one Holy Handbook than via the jumble of contradictions we find when we try to accept EVERY so-called Sacred Scripture.
Very well said. All religions could be wrong, even Christianity, in which I am placing all my blue chips. However, there is no way they can logically all be right. One thing I know for sure; Patrick Swayze now knows whether or not I have been duped,
> All religions could be wrong, even Christianity, in which I am placing all my blue chips.
As I see it, placing "all your chips" in Christianity would only turn out to be a regrettable mistake if there's a God and He really did make one religion, but it isn't Christianity (but instead, it's one of the other 100,000 religions [or so] that have existed over the last 10,000 years [or so] ).
But if it turns out there's no god (or there IS a god but no afterlife), then I don't think placing all your chips in Christianity is necessarily a waste. I have relatives who are deeply religious, and as far as I can tell, their church-centered lives make them quite happy, even if the happiness derives from nowhere but the placebo effect. (Although they're Mormons, so it's debatable whether that counts as Christianity!)
I find that the evidence of the world points to an atheistic/agnostic conclusion, but I would never say that realizing this truth (assuming of course that it is the truth) will always make one happier / better off.
> However, there is no way they can logically all be right.
Agreed--it's political correctness at the expense of simple logic. The rationalizations people use to justify this "feel-good" conclusion are truly convoluted.
> One thing I know for sure; Patrick Swayze now knows whether or not I have been duped
But only if there's an afterlife. If there's no afterlife, Patrick Swayze now has no type of consciousness whatsoever.
Sure, I get your point. I only say that to show that if indeed Patrick's soul (or the immaterial aspect that animated him) no longer exists, then by it not existing he "now knows" that what the Bible say about the reality of hell and a new heaven and new earth was false because he did not end up in either place, even though as you point out, he would not be consciously aware of it. Good on ya!
True, I know plenty of people who don't believe in God who seem to be quite unhappy, sad and depressed about life in general. Know that even as a Christian I struggle with these emotions. In fact, i'm convinced that being a Christian makes life harder, not easier. For the Christian there is a battle between the old nature and the new nature that comes from being united to Jesus Christ by God's grace through faith. For the unbeliever, there is not battle going on at all.
If Christianity is not true I would much rather sleep in on Sundays rather than go to church, invest the money for myself rather then give it to God through the work of his church, be immoral when it seems to be the pragmatic thing to do rather than obey God's commands regardless of the circumstances and put my interests and purposes first rather than try to live for God's as revealed in Scripture.
> True, I know plenty of people who don't believe in God who seem to be quite unhappy, sad and depressed about life in general.
Just in case my previous comment was misleading, I don't think atheism necessarily makes people *unhappy* either (I feel relatively happy myself: I have a decent job, been mostly-happily married for 21 years, have 4 great healthy children, and I have time to pursue my passion for writing & music [I'm writing from my musician channel at the moment] ).
I think there can be *benefits* to atheism, but it depends on the individual. For ex-believers who had previously felt the mental strain of cognitive dissonance, or were terrified about going to hell, coming to the realization that all religions are man-made (with no divine input whatsoever) can be a great relief.
But for those who were counting on the eternal life, having the new perspective that this was just a fantasy might well be deeply disappointing.
> For the Christian there is a battle between the old nature and the new nature that comes from being united to Jesus Christ by God's grace through faith. For the unbeliever, there is no battle going on at all.
As I see life, both believer and unbeliever struggle with the constant balance between choosing what's good purely for ourselves, and what's good for us as members of a community.
Sometimes there's no conflict: if I work hard to earn my living, both myself & society may profit. But if I take shortcuts—get lots of quick money thru cheating or stealing—well, that may be good for me in the short run, but destructive to my community. And it's even destructive to me personally if (a) society catches & punishes me, or (b) I live in a society without punishments and this sort of behavior runs rampant—especially when people start stealing from ME.
The same tension exists between our urges in many other areas too, like cheating on our partners, and settling disputes violently. We may personally have the urge to do these things to other people, but we certainly don't want other people to do these things to us.
As I see it, this tension goes WAY back, possibly even pre-dating the evolution of man (see my ToddAllenGates video "The pre-religion, and pre-human, roots of morality"). Once humans evolved to the point of creating religion, we explained this tension via the supernatural: the Hindus say we have selfish urges because we don't recognize Brahma's Divinity within ourselves, Christians say we abused God's gift of Free Will and chose sin, etc.
But to me, such explanations all come from man's urge to come with stories to explain our inner struggles.
> If Christianity is not true I would much rather sleep in on Sundays rather than go to church
But isn't the community aspect of church rewarding? I have to admit that atheists don't have anything directly comparable. I'll also admit that I sometimes go to my local church (the Brooklyn Tabernacle) just for the music.
(If you've never heard the Brooklyn Tabernacle's choir before, check them out—they're amazing. The title of this video is "CHURCH MEDLEY ( BROOKLYN TABERNACLE CHOIR )" -- watch?v=uiJK_bfs1RI)
* * * *
> be immoral when it seems to be the pragmatic thing to do rather than obey God's commands regardless of the circumstances and put my interests and purposes first rather than try to live for God's as revealed in Scripture.
I can't think of many examples of when being immoral is pragmatic. For example, I feel that being faithful to my wife *is* being pragmatic. Cheating may have short-term thrills, but in the long run it brings a much greater amount of unhappiness than happiness (completely independent of threats of damnation in an invisible afterlife).
I would say it this way: If Jesus Christ is not who he claimed to be (the Creator of the universe who took on human flesh in time and space history) and if he did not rise bodily from the grave after a definite time of being really dead, then I am a very stupid fool. True Christianity is not easy, for it calls a man to die to himself, love God first and then his neighbor as himself, learn to hate the sin that so easily trips him up and live a life of repentance every day trusting in Jesus alone.
to admit that we're human and posses minds that weren't build to grasp the vast and immense reality of the spiritual world with any sort of completeness. At the same time as NO ONE can understand fully, each religion does understand, to the best of human ability, the culturally relevant aspects of the reality of GOD that have evolved over the generations. The things we believe are real--all of them--but on a much larger scale than we can fathom. THAT'S what it means to say all religions are one!
strykkerr 4 months ago
@strykkerr
> we're human and posses minds that weren't build to grasp the vast and immense reality of the spiritual world
If indeed there is a spiritual world! Maybe there is, but to me it seems more improbable than probable. (Well, it depends on how you define spiritual. If we broaden the meaning to include music and early morning running in clean air, then I would say YES, there is a spiritual world.)
ToddAllenGates 4 months ago
@strykkerr
> THAT'S what it means to say all religions are one!
This is a 6-part series, and somewhere I know I do acknowledge that "New Age" is large umbrella term, and that my analysis doesn't apply to each group. So again, my focus is on those who believe that Divinity has spoken to us, and the Words have been Recorded (in one way or another).
ToddAllenGates 4 months ago
They've developed into strictly structured religions that don't allow room for uncertainty, because as humans we are comforted by the idea that we have it all figured out, that we know the one true way and it is the only way. But the truth is all of them are right! There is only one way..we just make sense of that one way by simplifying it into a metaphor that we can grasp. The only way to understand what is meant by the idea that all religions are one, is to humble ourselves once and for all--
strykkerr 4 months ago
@strykkerr
> They've developed into strictly structured religions that don't allow room for uncertainty, because as humans we are comforted by the idea that we have it all figured out, that we know the one true way and it is the only way.
Well said!!
ToddAllenGates 4 months ago
@strykkerr
> But the truth is all of them are right! There is only one way..we just make sense of that one way by simplifying it into a metaphor that we can grasp.
With your explanation, yes, I agree, and this makes sense.
But if you isolate your sentiment that "religions are all true metaphors," I feel that can be easily misunderstood into the equivalent of "The Divine dictated all these metaphors, the correct interpretation of which is The Truth!"
ToddAllenGates 4 months ago
religion is simply a metaphor, a simplification of something that is far too vast for our human minds to grasp while we are here on Earth. We as humans yearn for explanations, to have an understanding of things. As a result we have, since the beginning of time (whenever that may be), been coming up with explanations for something that is outside the boundaries of our comprehension. They're just metaphors, defense mechanisms for coping with the anxiety that goes along with not understanding.
strykkerr 4 months ago
@strykkerr
> religion is simply a metaphor, a simplification of something that is far too vast for our human minds to grasp while we are here on Earth.
My feeling is that if more people felt that way, the world would be a better place! But unfortunately, far too many people believe their holy books were dictated by god, such as the majority of Republicans running for the US presidency.
ToddAllenGates 4 months ago
@strykkerr
> They're just metaphors, defense mechanisms for coping with the anxiety that goes along with not understanding.
They're perhaps best understood that way, but I suspect (but certainly don't "know") that the ancient people who wrote them thought of them as defense mechanisms. They were writing down stories that had been passed down by oral tradition--probably a great many of the authors thought these stories were literally true.
ToddAllenGates 4 months ago
same opportunity to know him? If someone is born into a culture that is different from yours, and has learned to be as loyal to their god as you are to yours, then how is it fair and just for that person, who believes wholeheartedly that THEIR path is the true path and has lived their life the best way they know how to, to be sentenced to eternity in Hell by your fair and just God? Religion is a huge contradiction of itself and the only way to make sense of it is to accept the fact that each
strykkerr 4 months ago
@strykkerr
> Religion is a huge contradiction of itself and the only way to make sense of it is to accept the fact that
... well, to me, I make sense of it by concluding that people want answers to the questions of Creation & Design, the question of Suffering, Rules for Living, and the hopes of an afterlife. So different people contribute different ideas to different packages that are later proclaimed as Sacred Texts.
ToddAllenGates 4 months ago
You can't dismiss the ideas of New Age spirituality based on the fact that you found some logical flaws and contradictions........Christianity and every other religion is absolutely full of logical flaws and contradictions, but they are disregarded and explained away based on the idea that all you have to do is have "faith" and follow the one truth path. If Christianity's God is fair and just, and the only way to come to him is through Jesus, then how come every person on earth does not have the
strykkerr 4 months ago
1 of 2:
@strykkerr
Hi Strykkerr, and my apologies for my delay in responding.
> You can't dismiss the ideas of New Age spirituality based on the fact that you found some logical flaws
I find that when a belief has deep logical flaws (Santa Claus, Christianity, etc.), that *is* a reason for dismissing it.
That being said, "New Age" is a very broad term, and from the rest of your comments, your particular interpretation DOESN'T contain the flaws I discuss in this video series.
ToddAllenGates 4 months ago
2 of 2:
That is, my criticism is more about those who believe that a Supernatural Being dictated Holy Words into various texts: and either those texts are different on purpose, or have been corrupted, or have been loosely emanated and interpreted via culture, etc.
Your approach, it seems to me, is closer to Deism ... and you combine that with noting that humans yearn for explanations, and then invent them.
ToddAllenGates 4 months ago
@strykkerr
> Christianity and every other religion is absolutely full of logical flaws and contradictions, but they are disregarded and explained away ...
Agreed! And true harm can come from fundamentalism in those religions, unlike New Age, which--as far as I can tell--has no fundamentalist wing to it.
(For the record, my belief is that a Creator is more improbable than probable. That makes me either an atheist or agnostic, depending on who's defining the terms.)
ToddAllenGates 4 months ago
Why bother criticizing something you're not part of? If you have faith in your own way, then just GO your own way. There's no need to tear down other people's ways. I don't go around tearing down Christianity or any other religion. If you felt truly confident in whatever way you take, you would not need to criticize mine or any other.
thebehtbeht 8 months ago
@thebehtbeht
1 of 10:
> Why bother criticizing something you're not part of? If you have faith in your own way, then just GO your own way.
In real life, it's often considered impolite to criticize religious beliefs—so to maintain friendly & productive relations with my friends, co-workers, & neighbors, I rarely bring the subject up.
ToddAllenGates 8 months ago
2 of 10:
But don't you find that your own beliefs about ANY subject can be further clarified when you discuss them with others—when you exchange ideas and apply critical thought? And aren't religious beliefs a worthy enough subject to examine?
ToddAllenGates 8 months ago
3 of 10:
Because if what one of the Holy Books claims is really true, it's the most important subject there is! And if ALL religions are just man's guesswork, that's important to discuss too, especially since religious beliefs affect real life: gay marriage, stem cell research, the never-ending tragedies in the Middle East, Kashmir, etc.
ToddAllenGates 8 months ago
4 of 10:
But although people feel free to criticize each other's politics & taste in movies & so on, religion often puts up a protective shield around it. Thus if someone says "Sarah Palin would make a great president," everyone feels free to comment on it (pro or con), but if someone says "No I can't brush my teeth on Saturday because my Holy Book forbids ALL work on the Sabbath," we're all supposed to back off and say "Well it's religion so we can't question it."
ToddAllenGates 8 months ago
5 of 10:
Maintaining civil relations with those around us may restrict conversations about religion in everyday life, but here in the world of YouTube, there's no need for such restrictions. And when the issues are discussed politely & civilly (as I would like to believe is true for my videos), these discussions can even be productive. (Someone may decide that there really is no valid reason for persecuting gays, killing heretics, having dirty teeth on Saturdays, etc.)
ToddAllenGates 8 months ago
6 of 10:
> There's no need to tear down other people's ways. I don't go around tearing down Christianity
I'm not approaching people and telling them their beliefs are wrong. I just put out a video discussing what I see are the philosophical problems of the belief that multiple religions contain aspects of the Divine, and people are free to tune in or not.
ToddAllenGates 8 months ago
7 of 10:
Also, I'm not Christian: I see all religions as man-made phenomena. My belief is that a Creator is more improbable than probable, which makes me either an atheist (if you define "atheist" as "lack of belief in a god or gods") or an agnostic (if you define "atheist" as "There is no god!").
ToddAllenGates 8 months ago
8 of 10:
> If you felt truly confident in whatever way you take, you would not need to criticize mine or any other.
I don't believe I have the "whole Truth"—I just discuss the reasons for the conclusions I've reached so far. One of the great things about YouTube is that I can reach a wide variety of "subject matter experts" who correct my mistakes.
ToddAllenGates 8 months ago
9 of 10:
For example, I had put out a number of videos discussing how the pre-Christian religion of Zoroastrianism influenced the authors of the New Testament. Several experts on Zoroastrianism, however, contacted me to let me know that although Zoroastrianism pre-dates Christianity by centuries, all the ancient Zoroastrian texts have been lost to history—
ToddAllenGates 8 months ago
10 of 10:
—so given that all our extant Zoroastrian texts were recorded centuries AFTER the New Testament, we can't know for sure whether Zoroastrianism influenced Christianity, or whether Christianity influenced Zoroastrianism.
Subsequently, I made two follow-up videos acknowledging my error.
It's for this same reason that scientists publish results of experiments: they want to see if their conclusions can stand up to scrutiny or not. Criticism of my conlusions is 100% welcome!
ToddAllenGates 8 months ago
Abrahamic religions believe, "I'm ok, you're not ok". New age religion believes, "I'm ok, you're ok". That's the main difference between the two.
billsf94131 1 year ago
@billsf94131
I agree—but when it comes to monotheism, the message of the so-called Holy Books *is* "I'm OK, you're not OK." Yet New Agers will still insist that utterly incompatible religions really are compatible: a task accomplished only via philosophically incoherent means.
But if "all's well that ends well," I suppose I should just keep my criticism of New Agers to myself!
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
Fine approach.I just got an idea.The different paths are the same as far as it serves the ( high ) priests,cult leaders & other profiteers keeping us below them as lambs for the slaughter. We are the non initiated,they are the inner circle.Unfortunately for them we are waking up ( slowly ) Their old ways ( New Age is older than you think ) of spellbinding us ( 9-11) will fade.With internet we can clear each others mind,so our hearts can glow in a fine way.Going to your next video.Bless you !
Ace4Tree1 1 year ago
@Ace4Tree1
> With internet we can clear each others mind,so our hearts can glow in a fine way.
I'd like to think so!
>Going to your next video.Bless you !
Thanks!
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
Interesting concept. But I think the problem is simpler than most think. Religions are PROBLEM. Not just the idea that all religions are the same.
PrincessGina1990 1 year ago
@PrincessGina1990
> Religions are PROBLEM. Not just the idea that all religions are the same.
Agreed ... but the fundamentalist's belief "my religion is right, everyone else's is wrong" is problematic for different reasons than the New Ager's belief of "All religions are One!" ... which is why I have different videos for each subject.
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
@ToddAllenGates
If only people would open their minds read books that their priests condemn.. maybe then they would understand why religions are THE BIG MISTAKE.
Ref: Free to Be Me by Mr. Vonshtain
PrincessGina1990 1 year ago
@ToddAllenGates
"New agers believe all religions are one" is simply not true. It's a sweeping generalization. Most new agers I know (which is quite a lot) don't care one way or the other about religions at all. They all know that it's obvious they have similarities and dissimilarities.
thebehtbeht 8 months ago
@thebehtbeht
1 of 2:
> "New agers believe all religions are one" is simply not true. It's a sweeping generalization.
True, and I acknowledge this in Part 3: that the umbrella term of "New Age" encompasses a wide variety of beliefs (there's certainly no "New Age pope" to set the rules). It's difficult to capture nuances in a title, so I was generalizing to draw attention to the common New Age anti-fundamentalist notion that there's not just One Truth that everyone must follow dogmatically.
ToddAllenGates 8 months ago
2 of 2:
> They all know that it's obvious they have similarities and dissimilarities
Yet it's also common for people who define themselves as "spiritual" rather than "religious" to say that the similarities are where we can find aspects of God in multiple religions. Thus lines such as Gandhi's "Religions are different roads converging upon the same point" are often quoted.
ToddAllenGates 8 months ago
@PrincessGina1990....What is your definition of "religion"?
germanicelt 1 year ago
The end result of globalization and increased communication between all humans will eventually lead to either the synthesizing of all religions into one or the obliteration of religion altogether. This I believe: before the age of world trade and exploration, local cultures responded to their environments and their religion reflected their immediate circumstances, but we see how various cultures have similar themes in their religions although they never knew of one another.
Wyrdmaven 1 year ago
@Wyrdmaven These unique cultures with their traditions and customs had a more visceral and profound relationship with their world and naturally developed an understanding (not belief) in all the layers of reality besides the material, superficial. There is not atheism in indigenous peoples. They had a direct relationship with their world at all levels, including their "gods." They experienced gnosis as a fact of life. But then the world shifted.
Wyrdmaven 1 year ago
@Wyrdmaven World trade and increased communication along with the growth of world empires led to the sharing of temporal ideas and technology increased and especially in the western world, empires spread out and committed genocide on a physical and cultural level and Xianity was the carrier of the virus of materialism. Shiny matter took the precedent, people left their ways (often by force) but became spiritually incompetent and we trapped in a new, foreign cultural identifier.
Wyrdmaven 1 year ago
@Wyrdmaven Today we see from the Xian right for example fear, paranoia and anger as they see with globalization the sharing of what cultural ideas remain as a threat to their "religion" while they are also trapped in materialism and do not have a real spiritual understanding. the move toward the New Age ways is a stumbling attempt (as is Wicca and paganism/heathenism) to have a richer and profound spirituality that is not based on faith/belief but experience.
Wyrdmaven 1 year ago
@Wyrdmaven The primary cornerstone of the more enlightened and intellectual strain of Wicca is to keep acquiring knowledge, both spiritual and otherwise, and to decide for one's own self what to belive. Find what works, live & breath it, cut out the fat.
I believe the practitioners you're referring to are what they dirissively dub "insta-wiccans", the one's sucked in by the earth-worshipping shtick and skimp on the metaphysical legwork.
CrazyGrapefruit 10 months ago
@Wyrdmaven
> The end result of ... increased communication between all humans will eventually lead to either the synthesizing ... or the obliteration of religion altogether ...
I remain continually surprised that the obliteration option hasn't yet occurred!
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
Comment removed
019807022 1 year ago
@019807022
1 of 3:
> Could it be that there is a lot more going on here then religions and science can understand yet.
Science acknowledges that there are mountains of areas it doesn't understand yet. And in all those areas, it confesses "I don't know." Religion, on the other hand, makes up answers and says "I DO know, and I'm eternally correct." And when it has the political power to do so (Christianity in the Middle East, Islam in Muslim countries today) ...
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
2 of 3:
... religion violently oppresses anyone who dares to challenge its claims.
> And maybe religions were all human inventions to help us understand this.
I agree that religions are all human inventions. But I don't think most religions express the idea that "there's more going on than we can understand." Quite the contrary—most religions are full of made-up answers they claim come from the Almighty, explaining Creation, Suffering, Rules for Living, and the Afterlife.
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
3 of 3:
> Maybe they were party created because we all fear death and they provide comfort.
Yes, I agree. But once religious people gain power, they can also provide terror.
> And partly created by people of authority to control the masses through fear.
I see the "control" thing as a side-consequence of religion—people make religions up to provide answers, and once those answers become set in a formal structure with hierarchies . . . well, power corrupts!
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
@ToddAllenGates I agree with you totally man. Thanks for the good videos!
019807022 1 year ago
You read scriptures from 3 Ancient religions & yet you call their concepts "New Age." Their concepts R not "New Age", they R ancient; timely parts of Progressive Revelation. "New Age" is just what you said: a mix-and-match! What you did not mention is that "New Age" is extremely SUPERFICIAL study of the cultural reasons for the Ancient Prophets of World Religions. The answer is to read & understand the Old Prophets, or talk to real scholars who have done so. Don't try to learn from twinkies.
menderfire9 1 year ago
@menderfire9
1 of 4:
> You read scriptures from 3 Ancient religions & yet you call their concepts "New Age."
I use the term "New Age" as a convenient umbrella term for the notion that all (or at least most) religions stem from the same Divine source. I know the idea itself is not modern, but it's particularly prevalent in today's popular press. So the term "New Age" is convenient and relevant, albeit not 100% accurate.
Regardless, I don't say ancient religions are New Age.
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
2 of 4:
> Their concepts R not "New Age", they R ancient; timely parts of Progressive Revelation."
By "progressive revelation," do you mean that you believe there's One God who gave humankind religions that got progressively better?
That this One God started out with nature religions; progressed to, say, Hinduism, moved on to Judaism, took a detour with Buddhism & Jainism, moved on to Christian, Islam, Sikhism, Mormonism, Scientology, etc.?
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
3 of 4:
> New Age" is just what you said: a mix-and-match!
Yes, we both agree on that.
> What you did not mention is that "New Age" is extremely SUPERFICIAL study of the cultural reasons for the Ancient Prophets of World Religions.
I believe I DO say that—"New Age" cherry picks feel-good passages from religion to religion, limits the scope to only those sentiments reflected in other religions . . .
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
4 of 4:
. . . and comes to a superficial conclusion that "All are One." That's why this 6-part series is called "*PROBLEMS* with ... New Age spirituality ..."
> Don't try to learn from twinkies.
This series is NOT a defense of New Age. Rather, it's a critical look at the most common rationalizations that New Agers use to justify the "All are ONE" belief, and why none are philosophically coherent.
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is." —Albert Einstein
Revenous33 1 year ago
I personally like Spinoza's concept of "god" in his philosophical approach without the determinism accentuated.
Revenous33 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Revenous33
> I personally like Spinoza's concept of "god" in his philosophical approach without the determinism accentuated.
I confess to not knowing a great deal about Spinoza's concept of god -- but from a quick google search, it seems that he would agree that organized religions are all just human guesswork about god. That is, they're 100% human: no "divine truths" (outside of what one would normally expect from human literature).
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
@ToddAllenGates You are correct my friend, God as suspending of nature itself, the characteristic of intelligent creation is latent on its design, the creator is far to complex to remount on outlining a limited figure in regards of human values, imagery or judgement, for it is to grand for us to see it in a singular representation, if the manifestation was perceivable- then it would be judgmentally viable- the very tangency would negate the scale of such a complex proportion.
Revenous33 1 year ago
@ToddAllenGates The concept of "god" could not be seen as a positive or negative in definition, because it is both in nature- its balance, the very nature that it is designed to manifest the environment of creation and its respective learning process to take place in all scales possible and unimaginable.
Revenous33 1 year ago
@ToddAllenGates The problem with his work is that he beleives everything is predetermined, he is surround with the notion that there is no free will and than nature govern us through natural limitations that are manifestation of the creator, like the way we respond to natural events, gravity, and that we have an identification because we adopted it by earlier developmental programming (parents, genes, external influences) But I really don't subscribe to that absolute determinism.
Revenous33 1 year ago
@ToddAllenGates Life can be both determinist in perception and random in its presentation, the inclination of either one is absolutist in idealization -for there is no coincidence nor random event in the singular projection, the duality is intrinsic in nature, it is a perceptual self-identification for something more than anthropocentrically measurable. How you respond to the nature of determined events are a very window of free will in which your actions can be measured.
Revenous33 1 year ago
@ToddAllenGates
Measured under rational stance, I believe the "gods" of earth culture texts were misunderstood and somehow misinterpreted notion of other high intelligent beings in the past. Not necessarily a "god" but a possible cosmic brother, or more developed being that manifested in such way that we believe them to be a god of creation, It has happened before on civilizations here, like the arrival of Spaniard conquistadors to the indigenous civilizations/groups of America & caribbean.
Revenous33 1 year ago
since you were attacking the notion that all religions are pointing at the same thing(usually a favorite christian pass time) I jumped to conclusions. My bad. I probably dont really have an issue here. You are trying to understand the religions logically and their logic is not what unites them. The experience one has from an honest practice is what unites them. The kingdom of heaven, nirvana, satori, rapture, are all different terms for the same experience. That is how they are one.
mrkurt13 1 year ago
@mrkurt13
> The kingdom of heaven, nirvana, satori, rapture, are all different terms for the same experience. That is how they are one.
This particular video series is a long one, but toward the end I discuss how the perspective you take is the only one I don't see a logical flaw in. The defenses for "all religions are One!" that I find problematic are those that make claims such as "God inspired intra-religious contradictions on purpose to expand your thinking," etc.
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
@ToddAllenGates
from my understanding, since God/ultimate reality stuff isnt logical, when a true teacher is teaching he will use what ever words necessary to steer people towards it. This differs from culture to culture and with time, hence the different religions. While the teacher is alive, he can correct them and keep them from having weird misunderstandings, but after he dies, if not enough of the students grasped what he was saying, it just falls apart into dogma and bigotry.
mrkurt13 1 year ago
@mrkurt13
> a true teacher will ...
This assumes, of course, that there really has been "true teachers"!
Also, perhaps this is just the result of my limited mindset, but it seems to me that *if* there was some sort of personal god out there, "He" would comprehend how limited we are, and be able to get down to our level and communicate in a clear & consistent manner--something that would look nothing like our current assorted mess of organized religions.
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
@ToddAllenGates
There have been true teachers...and f'ed up followers for the most part. I'm not arguing there is a personal God. Belief in that is a stage of development some people have to go through. I'm with you 100% on all the crazy shit people have made up.... I'm just saying that don't let the retard's made up take on spirituality convince you there is nothing to it. Sam Harris explains the mystical experience in atheist terms pretty well if you are interested in investigating that.
mrkurt13 1 year ago
@ToddAllenGates
But the atheist community and people like Pat condel spend all their time showing how retarded all the retards are. Yippee! Whoop de f'ing doo. I think in the past 5 years you have all proved your point. There's nothing left to say. Time to move on to exploring new levels of understanding/spirituality/consciousness/brain states/ego/etc. The atheists/theist debate is really getting old. Not that I dont appreciate your efforts. They are probably necessary.
mrkurt13 1 year ago
@ToddAllenGates
That is why in most religions, the founder/main teacher never writes anything down(Jesus and Buddha for example). All the words are not true or misleading to most people.
I'll find some time to get though all 6 parts of your video and let you know what I think.
-peace.
mrkurt13 1 year ago
@ToddAllenGates
From a certain reference frame/reality tunnel/level of consciousness, we are all God. We ARE the universe. That is the mystical experience common to all religions. You can call it a hallucination if you want, but that is the end goal. The whole universe supports us just as much as our brain or heart... so in a way we did make all the intra-religious contradictions ;-)
The personal God thing is a pretty Gross misunderstanding of that idea.
mrkurt13 1 year ago
@BlasphemyPiano
"You think you hold the divine wind of God in some verbal truth box and you've wound up with stale air.
I don't think you watched my video! As an atheist, I would certainly never say anything like "such & such is a Truth from God"
That comment wasnt directed at you at all. IT was directed at the maker of this video? You getting enough sleep? ;-) Notice the @toddallengates at the start of it....
mrkurt13 1 year ago
@mrkurt13
> @BlasphemyPiano That comment wasnt directed at you at all. IT was directed at the maker of this video? You getting enough sleep? ;-) Notice the @toddallengates at the start of it.
Sorry, my bad. BlasphemyPiano is one of my other accounts, and I forgot that I was logged into it. Just to make things clearer, I've deleted all the comments from my BlasphemyPiano account and replaced them with the same comments from my ToddAllenGates channel.
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
@ToddAllenGates
ah, thought I was going crazy.
mrkurt13 1 year ago
@mrkurt13
> ah, thought I was going crazy.
Again, my mistake ... I have four accounts (ToddAllenGates for religion, ToddGates for piano & blues harp, ToddAllenGates2 for the relationships between work / money / happiness, and BlasphemyPiano for piano accompaniments to Nick Gisburne's "Blasphemy!" book), and I sometimes forget to check to make sure I'm responding from the correct channel.
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
@BlasphemyPiano
Thats totally fine. When I say god or creator I am, in my mind, referencing something beyond words. Something only experientially known. So definitions are kind of pointless. I'd say agnostic is the safe bet. Trust what you know and have seen and be open to seeing or knowing new things. But never go against what you feel to be true.
mrkurt13 1 year ago
> . > 100% agree. Wow. o.O Nice video.
knightofhope111 1 year ago
@knightofhope111
> Wow. Nice video.
Thanks!
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
You know why these ideas disagree with you? you get your spirituality from words, books and concepts. Why bother criticizing. The all is one is based on the experience of it. Not the logic behind it. Good luck in your quest to find God with logic. You'll need it.
mrkurt13 1 year ago
@mrkurt13
> The "all is one" is based on experience
Basing one's belief on "experience" leads to thousands of conflicting claims: such "experiences" back up the Exclusive Truth of Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc. But they can't all be true: Jesus can't be "the only way" and "not the only way."
Human logic isn't perfect, but it's still a safer bet than emotion when it comes to discovering reality (e.g. the logic behind vaccinations vs. the emotion that "God will heal").
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
@ToddAllenGates
Um, if you're going to go down that path good luck with ever grasping anything important in Christianity. Logically, Jesus cant be fully human AND fully God. God cant be 3 parts and only one at the same time. God cant logically have existed before time thought and concept but he did. Your faith is full of logical contradiction just like anything else. Worldly paths can conflict when dealing with spiritual truths that are beyond words. The word is never the truth.
mrkurt13 1 year ago
@mrkurt13
> God cant be 3 parts and only one at the same time...Your faith is full of logical contradiction just like anything else
Hi Mr. Kurt,
My belief is that the existence of a Creator is more improbable than probable. So whether that makes me an atheist or agnostic depends on your definitions for those terms, but regardless, I'm not Christian! So I have no problem recognizing the incoherence of Christianity.
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
@ToddAllenGates
You make all these videos about words and concepts and its just all total BS. God is infinte and completely beyond words. All our words thoughts and concepts can do it point us at God. Think of the words as signs. They can be different shapes for different cultures and different people. Their shapes conflict and that's totally fine, they aren't god. They arent salvation. They are pointing you to it and what ever gets your attention is the best sign for you.
mrkurt13 1 year ago
@mrkurt13
> God is infinte and completely beyond words. All our words thoughts and concepts can do it point us at God.
I should just add here that although I see the existence of a personal Higher Creator as improbable, I have no argument against those who believe but see God as infinite and beyond understanding. My main argument is with those who believe they *know* God's will: that "He" hates gays, invented the caste system, wants men's beards to be a certain length, etc.
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
@ToddAllenGates
Your spirituality is pale and flaccid and devoid of mystery. You think you hold the divine wind of God in some verbal truth box and you've wound up with stale air. If you ever do convert someone with your empty logic and make them think they have come to any understanding of the transcendent God you have injected spiritual poison into their veins that will probably not come out in this life time. But what ever, you hold the truth, right? feel free to keep doing it.
mrkurt13 1 year ago
@mrkurt13
> You think you hold the divine wind of God in some verbal truth box and you've wound up with stale air.
I don't think you watched my video! As an atheist, I would certainly never say anything like "such & such is a Truth from God."
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
@ToddAllenGates
Ugh....the new commenting thing is so glitchy. I will watch the rest of your videos. Sorry for the assumption.
mrkurt13 1 year ago
@mrkurt13
> Ugh....the new commenting thing is so glitchy.
Yes - perhaps beyond human understanding!
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
This isnt new age. Abrahamic faiths are the only ones that arent on board with these ideas.
mrkurt13 1 year ago
@mrkurt13
> This isnt new age. Abrahamic faiths are the only ones that arent on board with these ideas
I acknowledge that "New Age" is not the perfect title--for example, I know many Unitarians who agree with the "many paths, one destination" idea but who would never call themselves New Agers. But this philosophy is very diverse, so I couldn't find anything all-encompassing ... Veritas48 called it "Oprah-theology," but I don't think that's any better.
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
If one considers religion as the attempt to control natural events by controlling the spirits/deities allegedly controlling those events then, indeed, all religions are one.
Prayer, crystals, auras, horoscopes, tearing out the hearts of virgins, etc., all promise the same end: CONTROL and the ever elusive freedom from fear.
Lohitaksha 1 year ago
> If one considers religion as the attempt to control natural events by controlling the spirits/deities allegedly controlling those events then, indeed, all religions are one
Agreed. (But of course, when New Agers say all religions "are one," they don't mean "all wishful thinking"!)
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
I believe in these...
/watch?v=u3BTtii4fIY
/watch?v=NLVhsph2JpY
/watch?v=H7dpGWYZMDc&feature=c hannel
/watch?v=o4qbnRM5csI
greatsinailove 2 years ago
Have you ever watch this video ? Self-explaining about the Baha'i ideal of unity.
IMAGINE♡ Bahá'í ♡ WORLD PEACE ♡ we are one family♡
CandlesOfUnity 2 years ago
> Have you ever watch this video?
Just watched it. Nice overview, but it only glossed over the subject of why a Creator would inspire utterly contradictory religions--religions with ideologies so incompatible that people kill each other over whose religion (and which version of which religion) is correct.
But this is a subject we've already discussed at length, so I don't think we'll get anywhere by rehashing it!
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
I think this would have been better with minimal quotations. There's so many that it's hard to hear the true point in all this because I'm not hearing the individuals own perspective or true passion, in fact I'm missing it (in a way) entirely. Also I have to beg to differ on All Religions Are One. While I can hold to "All Gods are One God" the religion thing is a bit hard to swallow. While there are many religions that wish for betterment and good will, what of the ones that mean ill will 2 all?
GuinevereDelicrouix 2 years ago
> Also I have to beg to differ on All Religions Are One.
Hi Guinevere,
We actually *don't* differ—I have the phrase "all religions are One!" in this video's title, but this video series is about the *problems* with this belief.
This series looks at the five different approaches that New Age theologians and philosophers use to defend their "all religions are One" belief, and why I believe that NONE holds up to scrutiny.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
Ah okay, I was unaware that that was the issue being "addressed". I know at times I pick misleading or Puny titles to catch peoples attention so good job on grabbing your audiences attention in this regard.
GuinevereDelicrouix 2 years ago
FEEL GOD and let us know how it feels like to be you. I need to see You bro and your soul speaking.
denlillefinefisk 2 years ago
A Sloka from Veda: Ruchinam vaichitryad rijukutil nana path jusham; nrinam ekogamyastvamasi pyasamarnavmiti"
("Due to the differences in individual dispositions, people follow different paths, but you are the only destination of all of them, just as the sea is the destination of all the waters").
TheCruelMonk 2 years ago
>just as the sea is the destination of all the waters
That different rivers lead to the same sea is easy to understand. But the idea that Contradictory Divine Commands such as
* "there IS a caste system" and "there is NOT a caste system"
and
* "god FORBIDS animal sacrifice" and "god DEMANDS animal sacrifice"
--is not quite the same thing. Unless the message is "Whatever you do—oppress or don't oppress, sacrifice or don't—it's all good with god."
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
2/2
The Dispensation of the Báb ended when Bahá'u'lláh experienced the intimation of
His mission in the SÍyáh-Chál, the subterranean dungeon in Tihran in which
He was imprisoned between August and December 1852. The Dispensation of
Bahá'u'lláh will last until the advent of the next Manifestation of God, which Bahá'u'lláh asserts will occur in no less than one thousand years.
(The Universal House of Justice, Messages 1963 to 1986, p. 739)
CandlesOfUnity 2 years ago
1 of 6:
Hi CandlesOfUnity,
First, my apologies for not responding earlier (work & family demands have left little time for YouTube lately), and second, thanks for your contributions toward my understanding of Bahaism.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
2 of 6:
> The Islamic Dispensation lasted until the advent of the Bab in 1844
Why do you think it is that so many Christians and Muslims that don't recognize the Bab as a representative of God's Will? After all, there are some 2.1 billion Christians and 1.5 billion Muslims, but only around 7 million Bahaists—most people I talk to are either only dimly aware of Bahaism or never even heard of it.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
3 of 6:
Even if I were to wholeheartedly accept the premise of a "Higher Power" (based on the First Cause and Intelligent Design arguments), I would still find the arguments made by theists—namely, that "God" has communicated with us through such & such religion—unconvincing.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
4 of 6:
Any God who was breathtakingly intelligent & competent enough to single-handedly designing creation (solar systems, babies that can breathe inside & outside of the womb, etc.), would, I think it stands to reason, would also communicate with us humans via a breathtakingly intelligent and competent manner.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
5 of 6:
But the chaotic smorgasbord of the world's religions offer no such thing—each is 100% explainable as the creation of man alone, and reflects man's ignorance, wisdom, cruelty, and compassion. A mixed bag, yes: just what we would expect of man as he struggled in the pre-scientific age to find answers for explaining creation, suffering, rules for living, and to comfort (and terrify) himself with tales of the afterlife.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
6 of 6:
Again, my thanks for your contributions, and my apologies for not having the time to keep this discussion active.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
Most of the time, peoples have problems with religion due to one of its teachings with which the person is struggling.
What is yours ?
CandlesOfUnity 2 years ago
Through His Manifestations (Prophets).
It is so breathtaking that you can't even admit the reality of the phenomena.
CandlesOfUnity 2 years ago
Denying God's reality ? He expose Himself to the sinceres. God is not to be comprehended via mere intellectual processes. It is an EXPERIENCE.
Good luck !
CandlesOfUnity 2 years ago
Because, as you, they deny the reality of other religions. They do not apprehend the oneness of God and the oneness of religion, revealed gradually, eternally.
There must be a beginning to this new Revelation. After less than 200 hundreds years, 7 M is very good. If you would reflect the reality of the Baha'i teachings instead of trying to reject them with mere opinions, it would help to expand its membership. Being so many to refuse God's Messenger, you all contribute to the situation.
CandlesOfUnity 2 years ago
> After less than 200 hundreds years, 7 M is very good.
Seven million may be very good for something man-made, but I would expect more if it really came from an Omniscient Omnipotent Deity who wanted to make "His Word" known. Maybe something like all 6.6 billion within a day or two. I hope I don't sound sarcastic, because it's not my intent. I just sincerely expect more from Omnipotence.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
1/2
You asked earlier about God's Dispensations Here it is precised :
DISPENSATION -- The period of time during which the laws and teachings of a
Prophet of God have spiritual authority. For example, the Dispensation of
Jesus Christ lasted until the beginning of the Islamic Dispensation, usually
fixed at the year AD 622, the year Muhammad emigrated from Mecca to Medina.
The Islamic Dispensation lasted until the advent of the Báb in 1844.
CandlesOfUnity 2 years ago
One truth, one path-as in the path of the individual-jesus is the catalyst for the spiritual path a each individual
TDP788 2 years ago
you're sort of missing the point of the "all roads" theme. no new ager will ever dispute that they contradict one another.
Democrats and republics contradict one another but they all serve to better the country, yes?
this is how the new ager thinks. All religions seek spiritual fulfillment.
Omthiest 2 years ago
1 of 4:
Hi Jeremy,
> you're sort of missing the point of the "all roads" theme. no new ager will ever dispute that they contradict one another. Democrats and republics contradict one another but they all serve to better the country, yes?
If you're a secular New Ager who thinks of different religions as just different people's attempt to make sense of the cosmos and to pass on wisdom, then yes, I agree:
ToddGates 2 years ago
2 of 4:
contradictions between different religions are just as expected as between Democrats and Republicans (and even between Democrat & Democrat / Republican & Republican).
But in this video series I'm specifically analyzing the type of New Ager who thinks that every religion (or at least every popular religion) came from the Same Source.
ToddGates 2 years ago
3 of 4:
So rather being analogous to different messages coming from different Democrats, this particular type of thought is saying all these clashing religions come from the SAME single politician.
So why does this One Single Source give clashing instructions in different times and places, and issue forth instructions so open to interpretation that even followers of the same faith will fight and kill each other over (Catholic vs. Protestant; Sunni vs. Shiite, etc.)?
ToddGates 2 years ago
4 of 4:
I've found that New Agers DO have answers to these questions: this series looks at how well the New Age explanations hold up to scrutiny.
ToddGates 2 years ago
You make a very well thought out and thorough analysis.
Personally, I view God as an amorphous ether that exists within and without of the physical world. the phenomenon that i feel during meditation. I believe that when people have a similar connection with the mystical realm of the mind, they glean insight about the philosophy of reality that cannot be gained without feeling this ether.
the problem with religion is that it tries to label and this amorphousness and package it into an idol.
Omthiest 2 years ago
however, in saying that, religion has felt what i feel, and even though theyre trying to understand "that which makes the tongue speak yet cannot be spoken by the tongue," something which can never be labeled and understood, the feeling of this thing, call it god if you want, is capable of inspiring wisdom
Omthiest 2 years ago
> the problem with religion is that it tries to label this amorphousness and package it into an idol.
And tell us that this amorphousness wants to us to do things like outlaw gay marriage and stone adulteresses and have "outcastes" obey the restrictions of the caste system.
> You make a very well thought out and thorough analysis.
Thanks!
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
If the men who worship ice condemn the men who worship vapor, the man who worships nothing can find water in both. its not the beliefs of the religion that are important, because they were created by man, its the fact that they feel what i feel and see what i see that creates the common ground. I don't particularly see the relavance of their specific beliefs because they are man-made, just like the words of socrates and confucius, that doesnt mean they don't hold weight.
Omthiest 2 years ago
For one thing, there is no concensus whatsoever upon the stoning of the aldulterers in the Islamic world. It is a practiced by the most fanatic, perverted Islamic factions. Mumammad did not enact such legislation. It is nowhere in the Coran. This French article is very informative on the question : "Adultère et lapidation - Ce que disent les textes !"
We should never confuse the Source with the muddy waters of superficial thinkers and their personal agendas. Religion is too serious a matter.
CandlesOfUnity 2 years ago
This law is unvalid at this time in humanity's history, from whatever source it comes from.
But first, we have to make sure the Coran itself clearly set that law in black and white.
Secundo, we have to acknowledge the end of the Mohammedan Dispensation at the appearance of the Babi Dispensation on May 19th 1844. Google "The Mission of The Báb: Retrospective, 1844-1994" by Douglas Martin.
CandlesOfUnity 2 years ago
> Google "The Mission of The Bab ..."
Thanks - once I have time to read the whole thing I'll get back to you with my thoughts.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
for our own security in this world and the worlds to come, we must confide the establishment of the rules to God, not our own puny self. That's what faith is. Being sure that God ask of us what is best for our physical, mental and spiritual development. He is the Omniscient. We must humbly differ, comprehending why or not. Knowledge comes not only with reflection, prayer and meditation but with practice. The more we act according to God's laws, the more we understand and are at peace.
CandlesOfUnity 2 years ago
Allen, we progress along the path. We were children then youth as humankind. We are now attaining adulthood. Thus, certains laws vary from time to time (religion to religion) being nurtured like babes, infants then mature persons. We learn. We conquer our physical nature to the point of letting go of all that impairs the enfoldment of our inner, spiritual reality. This reality, we don't know much about without being in touch with it as certain mystics and saints are. Being that ignorant...
CandlesOfUnity 2 years ago
As well, certain disciples, saints and seers reflected God's light into the world, their hearts being very pure. To these last we say thank you, but do not attribute the station of prophethood.
Each great Prophets have their own set of teachings and laws. Smaller ones explain what's in them, why it is so. They help us to comprehend.
The founders of religions have always announced the coming of another great one in time, this great Covenant between God and humanity being eternal.
CandlesOfUnity 2 years ago
As mentionned earlier, the divine Prophets are founders of world religions, namely : Krishna, Abraham, Zoroaster, Moses, Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad, Bahá'u'lláh. These are not only great philosophers, profound mystics and highly knowleageable persons, but they possess an innate nature different from that of ordinary man.
There were also smaller Judeo-Christian prophets like Isaiah which were not founders of religions but represented great poles along the path towards God. (...) 1/2
CandlesOfUnity 2 years ago
Hi again CandlesOfUnity,
There's an article in today's NY Times called "Extremism Spreads Across Indonesian Penal Code," and that accused adultresses face death by stoning. The Shariah police have a good case for this: it's God's Law as expressed in the Koran.
You *do* believe the Koran is one of God's Sacred Texts, right?
So isn't it best to abide by God's Law and stone these women to death?
If not, why not?
Where's the update where God says "I changed my mind on this law."
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
The real teachings of Krishna are lost for the most part. What is left is mostly superstition and idolatry. In fact, each of these idols represent one aspect of the divinity, a special virtue or divine power. Listen to my playlist on Prophet KRISHNA and the other ones. You might start to understand the unity of divine revelation.
Scientology is not a religion, not even a sect since not being divine in origin. It's, at the most, a dangerous kind of biofeedback therapy.
CandlesOfUnity 2 years ago
> Scientology is not a religion, not even a sect since not being divine in origin.
No argument here!
But earlier you did say that the root of all religions is the one true God. On what basis do you exclude Scientology? What about Mormonism and Nation of Islam? On what basis can we say that these religions fall into the "made by God" or "made by man" category?
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
We must distinguish between seers and Prophets sent by God. You confuse them. Major religions are in reality one since being progressive in revelation.
Christians as well as Jews and Mohammadans have to recognize the Prophets coming before and after their own Prophet. They come from the same Source but their social messages differs, corresponding to the conditions of the time they appear.
See it as first school grade, second, third and so on. They always add to our spiritual knowledge.
CandlesOfUnity 2 years ago
1 of 3:
> See it as first school grade, second, third and so on.
The knowledge imparted in school follows a clear logical progression: start with addition and the alphabet; move on to multiplication and writing; and move on to trigonometry and great literature. No subsequent lesson contradicts an earlier lesson—each builds upon the other.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
2 of 3:
But subsequent religions contradict each other flatly. As one example of *thousands,* Hinduism (3-4000 BC), Christianity (100s AD), Islam (600s), Mormonism (1800s) bounce back and forth between the notion that Jesus is necessary for salvation.
Unlike first-second-third grade, each religion says it alone has The Divine Truth and all the rest are dead wrong: dreadfully and *eternally* wrong. It's only via cherry-picking that you can say different religions are harmonious.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
3 of 3:
For you, what's your most reliable way of knowing God's Will? Take something like homosexuality. Christians & Muslims tells us God condemns it; Hindus and Buddhists (for the most part) tolerate it.
Which religions have it right and which are wrong—and how do you know?
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
Allen,
You must understand that God has made a Covenant with humanity since the start : He will send a new Prophet each time it is needed, be it by growth or decay and our role will be to obey. Always have people been given the time to adjust to the new Covenant and play their role. If they don't, it is their will. God is not unjust nor His Messengers. If you discern with the eyes of the heart, you will understand that destruction of what is of no further use is not wrath but progress.
CandlesOfUnity 2 years ago
1 of 2:
> [God] will send a new Prophet each time it is needed
So would you say, then, that God sent Mohammad to let us know that the Christians were wrong: that Christ is really NOT the savior?
And then in the 1800s, God sent Joseph Smith (Mormonism) to say Mohammad was wrong—that Christ really IS the savior after all?
And then in the 1900s, God sent Wallace Fard (Nation of Islam) to say Joseph Smith was wrong—that Christ really ISN'T the savior after all?
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
2 of 2:
> our role will be to obey
Yet many alleged "sacred" commands flatly contradict each other. I cannot obey the Hindu sects that command "Worship idols!" and Islam's command "DON'T worship idols!"
If God sends out new prophets as needed, does that mean recent religions supersede earlier ones? Does this mean Scientology is the more accurate than Buddhism: that our suffering is caused not by our unreasonable desires but by the evil space alien Xenu?
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
Hello Allen !
It seem antithetic ? God has a unifying project for humanity.
A certain time is given to accomplish this goal.
Every soul is endowed with the capacity to recognize the importance of the command and respond accordingly. Once the time over and the reply being negative, the law of justice applies. In some such chastisements, good fate for the pure in heart is preferred over good fate for the rebellious. Each Prophet comes to accomplish his part in this progressive process.
CandlesOfUnity 2 years ago
> It seems antithetic?
CHRISTIANITY: you will go to hell if you DON'T accept Jesus as your savior
ISLAM: you will go to hell if you DO accept Jesus as your savior
BUDDHISM: there's no such thing as hell
How is this *not* antithetic?
> God has a unifying project for humanity. A certain time is given to accomplish this goal.
I guess the "unifying" part is still pending!
ToddGates 2 years ago
The Root of all the world religions is the one true God. Their spiritual teachings are the same or complementary, expanding our knowledge with each new Gospel. The social laws are abrogated or adjusted by each new Messenger according to the needs of the time. In short, One God, one Religion, one Humanity recognizing itself as one tree.
CandlesOfUnity 2 years ago
> Their spiritual teachings are the same or complementary ...
Jainism prohibits violence; Islam commands that apostates should be killed. How are these "complementary"?
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
I could not agree more, all paths do not lead to God.
bzel333 2 years ago
>I could not agree more, all paths do not lead to God
I personally feel that the evidence points to the conclusion that *all* religions stem from nowhere but man's imagination.
But our one area of common ground is that I agree that IF there really was a Creator out there who wanted to communicate with us, it would certainly make more sense to provide directions via one Holy Handbook than via the jumble of contradictions we find when we try to accept EVERY so-called Sacred Scripture.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
Very well said. All religions could be wrong, even Christianity, in which I am placing all my blue chips. However, there is no way they can logically all be right. One thing I know for sure; Patrick Swayze now knows whether or not I have been duped,
bzel333 2 years ago
1 of 4:
> Very well said
Thanks!
> All religions could be wrong, even Christianity, in which I am placing all my blue chips.
As I see it, placing "all your chips" in Christianity would only turn out to be a regrettable mistake if there's a God and He really did make one religion, but it isn't Christianity (but instead, it's one of the other 100,000 religions [or so] that have existed over the last 10,000 years [or so] ).
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
2 of 4:
But if it turns out there's no god (or there IS a god but no afterlife), then I don't think placing all your chips in Christianity is necessarily a waste. I have relatives who are deeply religious, and as far as I can tell, their church-centered lives make them quite happy, even if the happiness derives from nowhere but the placebo effect. (Although they're Mormons, so it's debatable whether that counts as Christianity!)
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
3 of 4:
I find that the evidence of the world points to an atheistic/agnostic conclusion, but I would never say that realizing this truth (assuming of course that it is the truth) will always make one happier / better off.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
4 of 4:
> However, there is no way they can logically all be right.
Agreed--it's political correctness at the expense of simple logic. The rationalizations people use to justify this "feel-good" conclusion are truly convoluted.
> One thing I know for sure; Patrick Swayze now knows whether or not I have been duped
But only if there's an afterlife. If there's no afterlife, Patrick Swayze now has no type of consciousness whatsoever.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
Sure, I get your point. I only say that to show that if indeed Patrick's soul (or the immaterial aspect that animated him) no longer exists, then by it not existing he "now knows" that what the Bible say about the reality of hell and a new heaven and new earth was false because he did not end up in either place, even though as you point out, he would not be consciously aware of it. Good on ya!
bzel333 2 years ago
True, I know plenty of people who don't believe in God who seem to be quite unhappy, sad and depressed about life in general. Know that even as a Christian I struggle with these emotions. In fact, i'm convinced that being a Christian makes life harder, not easier. For the Christian there is a battle between the old nature and the new nature that comes from being united to Jesus Christ by God's grace through faith. For the unbeliever, there is not battle going on at all.
bzel333 2 years ago
If Christianity is not true I would much rather sleep in on Sundays rather than go to church, invest the money for myself rather then give it to God through the work of his church, be immoral when it seems to be the pragmatic thing to do rather than obey God's commands regardless of the circumstances and put my interests and purposes first rather than try to live for God's as revealed in Scripture.
bzel333 2 years ago
1 of 9:
> True, I know plenty of people who don't believe in God who seem to be quite unhappy, sad and depressed about life in general.
Just in case my previous comment was misleading, I don't think atheism necessarily makes people *unhappy* either (I feel relatively happy myself: I have a decent job, been mostly-happily married for 21 years, have 4 great healthy children, and I have time to pursue my passion for writing & music [I'm writing from my musician channel at the moment] ).
ToddGates 2 years ago
2 of 9:
I think there can be *benefits* to atheism, but it depends on the individual. For ex-believers who had previously felt the mental strain of cognitive dissonance, or were terrified about going to hell, coming to the realization that all religions are man-made (with no divine input whatsoever) can be a great relief.
But for those who were counting on the eternal life, having the new perspective that this was just a fantasy might well be deeply disappointing.
ToddGates 2 years ago
3 of 9:
> For the Christian there is a battle between the old nature and the new nature that comes from being united to Jesus Christ by God's grace through faith. For the unbeliever, there is no battle going on at all.
As I see life, both believer and unbeliever struggle with the constant balance between choosing what's good purely for ourselves, and what's good for us as members of a community.
ToddGates 2 years ago
4 of 9:
Sometimes there's no conflict: if I work hard to earn my living, both myself & society may profit. But if I take shortcuts—get lots of quick money thru cheating or stealing—well, that may be good for me in the short run, but destructive to my community. And it's even destructive to me personally if (a) society catches & punishes me, or (b) I live in a society without punishments and this sort of behavior runs rampant—especially when people start stealing from ME.
ToddGates 2 years ago
5 of 9:
The same tension exists between our urges in many other areas too, like cheating on our partners, and settling disputes violently. We may personally have the urge to do these things to other people, but we certainly don't want other people to do these things to us.
ToddGates 2 years ago
6 of 9:
As I see it, this tension goes WAY back, possibly even pre-dating the evolution of man (see my ToddAllenGates video "The pre-religion, and pre-human, roots of morality"). Once humans evolved to the point of creating religion, we explained this tension via the supernatural: the Hindus say we have selfish urges because we don't recognize Brahma's Divinity within ourselves, Christians say we abused God's gift of Free Will and chose sin, etc.
ToddGates 2 years ago
7 of 9:
But to me, such explanations all come from man's urge to come with stories to explain our inner struggles.
> If Christianity is not true I would much rather sleep in on Sundays rather than go to church
But isn't the community aspect of church rewarding? I have to admit that atheists don't have anything directly comparable. I'll also admit that I sometimes go to my local church (the Brooklyn Tabernacle) just for the music.
ToddGates 2 years ago
8 of 9:
(If you've never heard the Brooklyn Tabernacle's choir before, check them out—they're amazing. The title of this video is "CHURCH MEDLEY ( BROOKLYN TABERNACLE CHOIR )" -- watch?v=uiJK_bfs1RI)
* * * *
> be immoral when it seems to be the pragmatic thing to do rather than obey God's commands regardless of the circumstances and put my interests and purposes first rather than try to live for God's as revealed in Scripture.
ToddGates 2 years ago
9 of 9:
I can't think of many examples of when being immoral is pragmatic. For example, I feel that being faithful to my wife *is* being pragmatic. Cheating may have short-term thrills, but in the long run it brings a much greater amount of unhappiness than happiness (completely independent of threats of damnation in an invisible afterlife).
ToddGates 2 years ago
I would say it this way: If Jesus Christ is not who he claimed to be (the Creator of the universe who took on human flesh in time and space history) and if he did not rise bodily from the grave after a definite time of being really dead, then I am a very stupid fool. True Christianity is not easy, for it calls a man to die to himself, love God first and then his neighbor as himself, learn to hate the sin that so easily trips him up and live a life of repentance every day trusting in Jesus alone.
bzel333 2 years ago
Ok I just get conflicting answers sometimes when I ask that question.
Frogstomp121 2 years ago
Why can't God and evolution exist together?
Frogstomp121 2 years ago