The "New Age"

[Panin]

Another point in regards to Buddha's teachings is that he spoke of a 'Holy One', Jesus, that was to come that would be able to carry us over the cycle of rebirths into the highest heaven(nirvana). I believe this was said about 500 years before Jesus came.

Just for clarification, Buddha spoke of a 'Holy One' but not specifically Jesus, we just can see now Jesus would fit that description. I can look up my reference for this somewhere if someone really wants to know but I'm to tired right now and it would require some digging.

"In the Buddhist Scriptures, there is a prophecy from about 500 B.C. (Before Christ) of the "Holy One" who would come. One who would lead the people away from the old way, and introduce a new way."

Buddha described the "Holy One" by saying;

"in the palm of his hands and in the flat of his feet will be the design of a disk, in his side will be a stab wound; and his forehead will have many marks like scars...."

http://cambodiaforjesus.com/ (1/4th down the page)

Thanks for that.

Ive been thinking, I dont really think Buhdism qualifies as a part of the New Age religions.

 

[Lance_Iguana]

Its not acutally. Buhhdism and Hinduism usually are barrowed from when allot of New age religions are formed.

Yoga,meditation, vegitarianism, and passive behavior is usually borrowed and mixed with European Shamanism, Astrology, and Paganism. I have pagan and pantheistic friends who actually hate flightly new agers because they cherry picked from various religions and don't care about the culture, traditions, etc. :yes

 

[Lance_Iguana]

Thirteen Doctrines Of The New Age

(1) The children of the future will serve a One World (Planetary Government) and live in a One World Culture. (2) Patriotism to one's country must be abolished and all national barriers destroyed in order to build a New One World Order. (3) Children will accept that Eastern mystical religion is to be married to the Christianity of the West to forge a new, unified social and religious order of Universal Truths. (4) Teenagers and youth will rebel and revolt against their parents and against authority to help usher in the New Age World Order. (5) Youth and all of humanity must accept that the time will inevitably come when grown-ups who refuse to become part of the New Age will have to be killed. They are to be considered as lowly germs, an infection or blot on humanity that must be stamped out and eradicated. (6) The traditional family unit is not desirable for the Aquarian, or New Age. Children belong to the government, to the world and the community--the human group--not to their parents. A new kind of family unit must inevitably come into existence. (7) Young people must be taught to believe in reincarnation and karma (the Law of Rebirth) rather than the resurrection and judgment teaching of the Bible. This belief must guide behavior, especially the sexual conduct.

(8) Absurd and immature notions of sin and guilt must not be imparted to children by parents, teachers, pastors and other adults. A more permissive and worldly attitude must be adopted. (9) Children are to be taught that all religions--Christianity, Witchcraft, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, Paganism, etc.--are equally worthwhile and that it doesn't matter in which god one believes. (10) The new generation of youth must recognize that Jesus did not come to save or convert anyone; because no one is lost. (11) Christian doctrines, such as that of heaven, hell, and judgment, must be discarded and the theology of the Old Testament must be repudiated. (12) A New Age World Religion must be established without Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. The Christian Church is dead and must be replaced. (13) The coming New Age World Religion will emphasize the unity of all religions while rejecting Jesus Christ's profound Biblical statement, I am the way, the truth and the life.

Now wich New Age religion teaches this, and what is the name of the book this came from?

 

[Panin]

Thirteen Doctrines Of The New Age

(1) The children of the future will serve a One World (Planetary Government) and live in a One World Culture. (2) Patriotism to one's country must be abolished and all national barriers destroyed in order to build a New One World Order. (3) Children will accept that Eastern mystical religion is to be married to the Christianity of the West to forge a new, unified social and religious order of Universal Truths. (4) Teenagers and youth will rebel and revolt against their parents and against authority to help usher in the New Age World Order. (5) Youth and all of humanity must accept that the time will inevitably come when grown-ups who refuse to become part of the New Age will have to be killed. They are to be considered as lowly germs, an infection or blot on humanity that must be stamped out and eradicated. (6) The traditional family unit is not desirable for the Aquarian, or New Age. Children belong to the government, to the world and the community--the human group--not to their parents. A new kind of family unit must inevitably come into existence. (7) Young people must be taught to believe in reincarnation and karma (the Law of Rebirth) rather than the resurrection and judgment teaching of the Bible. This belief must guide behavior, especially the sexual conduct.

(8) Absurd and immature notions of sin and guilt must not be imparted to children by parents, teachers, pastors and other adults. A more permissive and worldly attitude must be adopted. (9) Children are to be taught that all religions--Christianity, Witchcraft, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, Paganism, etc.--are equally worthwhile and that it doesn't matter in which god one believes. (10) The new generation of youth must recognize that Jesus did not come to save or convert anyone; because no one is lost. (11) Christian doctrines, such as that of heaven, hell, and judgment, must be discarded and the theology of the Old Testament must be repudiated. (12) A New Age World Religion must be established without Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. The Christian Church is dead and must be replaced. (13) The coming New Age World Religion will emphasize the unity of all religions while rejecting Jesus Christ's profound Biblical statement, I am the way, the truth and the life.

Now wich New Age religion teaches this, and what is the name of the book this came from?

It came from a web site, take it with a pinch of salt, it could be corn ball, it could be true.

It looks like a New World Order manifesto , more than a New Age Religion.

 

[seekandlisten]

Its not acutally. Buhhdism and Hinduism usually are barrowed from when allot of New age religions are formed.

Yoga,meditation, vegitarianism, and passive behavior is usually borrowed and mixed with European Shamanism, Astrology, and Paganism. I have pagan and pantheistic friends who actually hate flightly new agers because they cherry picked from various religions and don't care about the culture, traditions, etc. :yes

Hey Lance,

You seem to have a pretty good knowledge of other religions. What would you say a 'new age' religion is? I'm always confused by this as a lot of people I have talked to refer to any religion that involves meditation or 'awareness' or even just new ideas as 'new age'. My understanding of the major religions is that Buddhism, Hinduism, and Taoism are the main religions that teach reincarnation and Judaism, Christianity, and Sufism teach resurrection. Then you have Zen, a blend of Buddhism and Taoism, and Sikhism, a blend of Hinduism and Sufism. Would any variation of these religions or religions borrowing from these ones be considered 'new age'? I was just curious what you would consider to be the more prominent 'new age' religons. Wicca I would assume would fall under 'new age' but what are some others that would be considered in the same category if you have any thoughts on this.

 

[Lance_Iguana]

I'm actually not that big on Theology. I know enough about the Pantheistic religions to get by and discuss them, but I really need to brush up on my european and South American religions. I just have a thirst for knoweldge that lead me to the Asian religions.

For me, In order for something to be new age, it has to have been a recent creation and a blend of multiple religions. Wicca is one yes, but wich brand of wicca :P . Allot of book stores sell Wiccan books, but most of them are either forgeries or completly false doctorine. Wicca is actually a fertility cult that can only be joined by either Legacy or invitation. Their practices are secret and have little to do with actual Majik. Another Forum I frequent has an actual Wiccan sub gruop thinig and they systmaticly boot out the New agers who are just in the fad version of the religion.

Now, for the pantheism similarities for New Age, how you seperate a New age and Pantheistic religion is by asking ther person. If Meditation and Yoga aren't being used to reach Machshaw, Brauhman, or Enlightenment, then you have a new ager. This is a hard topic, because the reason the New Age Lable came around was because there really weren't any prominant religions in the group. Just various spiritualisms that blended together.


I've notice that there are 2 schools of thought within the catagory though. YOu have the more European lot who are the Neo Pagan and Shamanistic ideals. They believe in Spirt Guids, worship eclectic gods, and can use Astrology.

Then there are the Pantheistic ones that use meditation, Vegitarianism, Yoga etc. With a hoshposh of jainism, Toaism, and Buhhdism thrown in.

Then there are those that blend them. Its confusing and some times ludacris some of the things that come out of New Age books I've thumbed through in barnes and Nobles or borders.


I sugest you ask a Theology profesor for a better explanation. I think Mine was just a bunch of rambleing.
Be warned though, you might see allot of twitching and held back rage when you ask. Mine sure did.

 

[seekandlisten]

Thanks for the insight lance. My thoughts on what a 'new age' religions are is similar to what you put forth here I just get confused sometimes when talking to certain people when they label pretty much everything they don't fully understand as 'new age'.

Most of my knowledge of other religions comes from reading books and researching online so yeah I know what you mean about some of the absurd ideas out there.

 

[Panin]

I'm actually not that big on Theology. I know enough about the Pantheistic religions to get by and discuss them, but I really need to brush up on my european and South American religions. I just have a thirst for knoweldge that lead me to the Asian religions.

For me, In order for something to be new age, it has to have been a recent creation and a blend of multiple religions. Wicca is one yes, but wich brand of wicca :P . Allot of book stores sell Wiccan books, but most of them are either forgeries or completly false doctorine. Wicca is actually a fertility cult that can only be joined by either Legacy or invitation. Their practices are secret and have little to do with actual Majik. Another Forum I frequent has an actual Wiccan sub gruop thinig and they systmaticly boot out the New agers who are just in the fad version of the religion.

Now, for the pantheism similarities for New Age, how you seperate a New age and Pantheistic religion is by asking ther person. If Meditation and Yoga aren't being used to reach Machshaw, Brauhman, or Enlightenment, then you have a new ager. This is a hard topic, because the reason the New Age Lable came around was because there really weren't any prominant religions in the group. Just various spiritualisms that blended together.


I've notice that there are 2 schools of thought within the catagory though. YOu have the more European lot who are the Neo Pagan and Shamanistic ideals. They believe in Spirt Guids, worship eclectic gods, and can use Astrology.

Then there are the Pantheistic ones that use meditation, Vegitarianism, Yoga etc. With a hoshposh of jainism, Toaism, and Buhhdism thrown in.

Then there are those that blend them. Its confusing and some times ludacris some of the things that come out of New Age books I've thumbed through in barnes and Nobles or borders.


I sugest you ask a Theology profesor for a better explanation. I think Mine was just a bunch of rambleing.
Be warned though, you might see allot of twitching and held back rage when you ask. Mine sure did.

Sorry Lance, and Im not picking a fight, but new age is not new at all, it has been around since the days of Nimrod even Cain. It's just been repackaged.

Also I suggest you keep the eastern religions separate, still I theorize that even they grew out of the times of Nimrod after the tower of Babel when God confounded the languages and scattered the people.

The Tower of Babel was actually all about atsrological satan worship. There is nothing new under the sun.

 

[seekandlisten]

Also I suggest you keep the eastern religions separate, still I theorize that even they grew out of the times of Nimrod after the tower of Babel when God confounded the languages and scattered the people.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think most of the 'eastern religions' sprang up in the 5th or 6th century BC. How do you link them to Nimrod and the tower of Babel??

The Tower of Babel was actually all about atsrological satan worship. There is nothing new under the sun.

How so?? I thought the tower of Babel was more along the lines of 'man' trying to get out from under God and building a tower that would save them from another flood.

 

[Panin]

Also I suggest you keep the eastern religions separate, still I theorize that even they grew out of the times of Nimrod after the tower of Babel when God confounded the languages and scattered the people.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think most of the 'eastern religions' sprang up in the 5th or 6th century BC. How do you link them to Nimrod and the tower of Babel??

The Tower of Babel was actually all about atsrological satan worship. There is nothing new under the sun.

How so?? I thought the tower of Babel was more along the lines of 'man' trying to get out from under God and building a tower that would save them from another flood.

Check out this link, you might find it interesting aparrently Nimrod means "Let us revolt."

http://www.tribulation.com/prt_towr.htm

Willmingtons Gude to bible is where I first learned of this idea. The tower was a place of Ecumunical worship.

 

[Panin]

http://prophecyarchive.com/ray/barr-fam ... /queen.htm

This link has more information about (what I believe to be) the beginning of the "new age" movement dating back to the time of Nimrod.

I also believe that Roman catholicism stems from this aswell, Mary worship being the same as the Queen of Heaven.

 

[Lance_Iguana]

I understand you aren't picking on me, but I do know the term "new age", refers to reinterpritations of old religions. Though they don't actually relate to the old ways.

Such as many Neo pagans don't actually fallow the traditions of the Norse, Greek, Romean, Druids, etc. They just cherry pick their favorite gods.

Astrology was a psudo science that is old as religion itself, but the varient used commonly is a simplified version of Roman Astrology. Egypt, The Aztechs, and China have their own signs and versions of the Zodiac and telling signs. :yes

In short, new age takes old practices, but not the old cultures and complete religions they originate from.

 

[Panin]

I understand you aren't picking on me, but I do know the term "new age", refers to reinterpritations of old religions. Though they don't actually relate to the old ways.

Such as many Neo pagans don't actually fallow the traditions of the Norse, Greek, Romean, Druids, etc. They just cherry pick their favorite gods.

Astrology was a psudo science that is old as religion itself, but the varient used commonly is a simplified version of Roman Astrology. Egypt, The Aztechs, and China have their own signs and versions of the Zodiac and telling signs. :yes

In short, new age takes old practices, but not the old cultures and complete religions they originate from.

Fair enough, what do you think of the following:

Secular history and tradition tell us that "Nimrod" married a woman who was as evil and demonic as himself. Her name was "Semerimus". Knowing God's promise of a future Savior (Gen. 3:15), Semerimus brazenly claimed that "Tammuz", her first son, fulfilled this prophecy.
Semerimus thereupon instituted a religious system which made both her and her son the objects of divine worship. She herself became the first high priestess. Thus began the Mother-child cult which later spread all over the world. The city of Babylon was the seat of Satan worship until it fell, in 539 B.C., to the Persians.


From Babylon it spread to Phoenicia under the name of Ashteroth and Tammuz.

From Phoenicia it traveled to Pergamos in Asia Minor. This is the reason for John's admonition to the church at Pergamos in the book of Revelation: ''I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan's seat is'' (Rev. 2:13).

In Egypt the mother-child cult was known as Isia and Horus.

In Greece it became Aphrodite and Eros.

In Rome this pair was worshipped as Venus and cupid.

In China it became known as Mother Shing Moo and her child.

In Mexico an image was found and authenticated as belonging to the period about 200 years before Christ, where it was the center of religious worship among some of the early Indians in Mexico. The image was of a mother with a child in her arms

Also what to you think about the New Age "Christ Consciousness" concept, that we are all divine etc etc. Ie that we just need to awaken the Christ within. I think this is one of the main "New" Age concepts today. But it is the same lie that satan fed to Adam and eve.

 

[azlan88]

I know that I'm very late in my entry, but I must insist that the Reason why Christianity didn't influence much of Asia is because the Holy Spirit commanded the disciples not to preach to Asia. However, China now has the fastest growing church in the globe, and its government frantically trying to suppress it. Also, Lance, if I may, why do you think that good and evil together create balance? That sounds very foolish to me because no good comes from evil. Evil causes only pain and suffering to all. Also, it is possible for there to be good without evil. Before there was evil, there was God, and God is love. God is good. Finally, you said that a lot of Christians seem ignorant of other religions. Well, I don't think it's quite right of you to say that Jesus' teachings are similar to Confucious' when they were the exact opposite!

Confucious said, "Be a light unto thyselves." Contrastingly, Jesus said, "I am the light. Without Me there is only darkness." Confucious also said, "Do not do unto others what you would have them not do unto you." But this is a fallacy because although people know exactly how to hurt others, it is very difficult to know how to please others. Jesus made a much better commandment when He said, "Do unto others what you would have them do unto you." This revealed the mystery of what it takes to please others, and it also ensured that those who obeyed His commandment wouldn't hurt others, either. Confucious also taught that mankind should take heed of the Shi, or wise educated men whom government rulers should adhere to. Jesus however, taught that He is "the way, the truth and the life," and that there are two paths, one narrow and one wide. People who seek Jesus go by the narrow path, which is difficult to cross, while the reset go by the wide and easy path, which leads to Hell.

Enterpreters of Confucious' teachings also taught that people were inherently good and that man can be perfected if that good is nurtured. Jesus, however, taught that mankind is inherently evil, and that we can only be perfected by His righteousness, not ours. Other enterpreters taught that man is inherently bad, which is true, but they also concluded that only a strong, authoritarian government could keep them in check. This is radically different form what Jesus had in mind, for the Jews wanted Jesus to establish His kingdom on earth and crush the evil Romans. But Jesus said, "My Kingdom is not of this world."

So I don't see where you're coming from when you say that Jesus and Confucious' teachings are similar. If I missed anything, then please inform me on what I may have missed.

 

[Lance_Iguana]

I know that I'm very late in my entry, but I must insist that the Reason why Christianity didn't influence much of Asia is because the Holy Spirit commanded the disciples not to preach to Asia. However, China now has the fastest growing church in the globe, and its government frantically trying to suppress it.

China isn't all of asia though. There is Cambodia, Russia, Laos, The Middle East, India, Hong Kong, Tibet, Mongolia, Siberia, etc. Pantheism holds strong.

Also, Lance, if I may, why do you think that good and evil together create balance? That sounds very foolish to me because no good comes from evil. Evil causes only pain and suffering to all. Also, it is possible for there to be good without evil.

I state that both form balance, because Evil is subjective to the person in many cases. I didnt' state that good comes from evil, but gives the proper contrast to compare the good from the bad. How can you define happyness if you havne't had sadness. To much sadness brings a person to depression. To much happyness leaves the person aloof and out of contact. With both evenly, a person can feel and reason from both sides logically and emotionally.

Before there was evil, there was God, and God is love. God is good.

This brings out a philisophical question, is God good becuase he truely is, or because he says that he is Good. Also Pantheism claims there never was a beggining. Only a continuos cycle with no end or beggining.

Finally, you said that a lot of Christians seem ignorant of other religions.

I stated this,because in general people are ignorant of the world around them, or outside there area of experiance.

Well, I don't think it's quite right of you to say that Jesus' teachings are similar to Confucious' when they were the exact opposite!

They are opposite in the sense that they dont' agree on an end, but are similar in how we treat our fellow man and women. That is the similarities I was talking about.

Confucious said, "Be a light unto thyselves." Contrastingly, Jesus said, "I am the light. Without Me there is only darkness."

Confusicious was talking about iner strenght and relying on yourself to be able to ask questions and be an insperation to others, while Jesus was talking about Salvation. They dont' fit the same context. So they cant' be compared.

That Confucious also said, "Do not do unto others what you would have them not do unto you." But this is a fallacy because although people know exactly how to hurt others, it is very difficult to know how to please others.

What was said istn' a fallacy. COnfusciaous was stating that you shouldnt' hurt others especially since you yourself don't watn to be hurt. That is the nature of Karma, wich even Jesus staes, in your message below.

Jesus made a much better commandment when He said, "Do unto others what you would have them do unto you." This revealed the mystery of what it takes to please others, and it also ensured that those who obeyed His commandment wouldn't hurt others, either.

Read above.

Confucious also taught that mankind should take heed of the Shi, or wise educated men whom government rulers should adhere to. Jesus however, taught that He is "the way, the truth and the life," and that there are two paths, one narrow and one wide. People who seek Jesus go by the narrow path, which is difficult to cross, while the reset go by the wide and easy path, which leads to Hell.

Jesus also said to Give onto Ceasear waht is Ceasears, wich is in the same context that is Confuscious.

Enterpreters of Confucious' teachings also taught that people were inherently good and that man can be perfected if that good is nurtured. Jesus, however, taught that mankind is inherently evil, and that we can only be perfected by His righteousness, not ours. Other enterpreters taught that man is inherently bad, which is true, but they also concluded that only a strong, authoritarian government could keep them in check. This is radically different form what Jesus had in mind, for the Jews wanted Jesus to establish His kingdom on earth and crush the evil Romans. But Jesus said, "My Kingdom is not of this world."

You'll have to be more specific about witch enterpriters you are talking aobut. Since Confuscious had many followers, and has been enterprited many times over the centureis.

So I don't see where you're coming from when you say that Jesus and Confucious' teachings are similar. If I missed anything, then please inform me on what I may have missed.

I answereed above, and I actually think the Buhhda and Jesus had more in common then Confuscious.

 

[azlan88]

Fair enough.

 

[Panin]

Confucious said, "Be a light unto thyselves." Contrastingly, Jesus said, "I am the light. Without Me there is only darkness."
Confusicious was talking about iner strenght and relying on yourself to be able to ask questions and be an insperation to others, while Jesus was talking about Salvation. They dont' fit the same context. So they cant' be compared

If confusious' teachings can not be compaired with Christ teachings (which I agree, they can't) then pray tell, why are you compairing them?

Also if Evil wasnt a neccessary and useful part of God's plan, he would not have placed the tree of knowledge in the garden.

In my opinion, buddha plagurised his wisdom from the bible. His teachings are far too similar to ignore this as a possibility. And I dare say the buhdda could not have started what is argueably the biggest cult in the world without doing so.

 

[Lance_Iguana]

If confusious' teachings can not be compaired with Christ teachings (which I agree, they can't) then pray tell, why are you compairing them?

The quotes Azlan brought up wheren't in the same context, so they couldn't be compared. As in Inerstrength can't be compared to salvation. You'd have to bring up a comparision of Salvation methods. Confuscious was not talking about salvation, but self knowledge.

Also if Evil wasnt a neccessary and useful part of God's plan, he would not have placed the tree of knowledge in the garden.

Pantheism defeats dualisms such as good and evil, while Theism claims there is always evil. Christianity is a form of Theism, while Confuscious's philosophy is a part of pantheism. Evil is a different entity in both styles.

In my opinion, buddha plagurised his wisdom from the bible. His teachings are far too similar to ignore this as a possibility. And I dare say the buhdda could not have started what is argueably the biggest cult in the world without doing so.

The Buddha could not have plagurised the Bible. That is impossible. Buddha lived 500 years before Jesus. The Bilbe wasn't written down, and collected, until The catholic church was established in Rome. Buddha predates Rome. Also, India had no Judaich contact. Its roots was in Hinduism. Buddhism is influenced by Hinduism.

History is an amazing thing. Crack open a history book sometime and learn about the religions of Orient.

 

[Panin]

[

The Buddha could not have plagurised the Bible. That is impossible. Buddha lived 500 years before Jesus. The Bilbe wasn't written down, and collected, until The catholic church was established in Rome. Buddha predates Rome. Also, India had no Judaich contact. Its roots was in Hinduism. Buddhism is influenced by Hinduism.

History is an amazing thing. Crack open a history book sometime and learn about the religions of Orient

I am obvioulsy not referring to the new testament. Proverbs for example. The bible has been written over a period of 2000 years.

The catholic church did not establish the bible or Christianity, Catholism is a counterfit organisation. If you got that from a History book, there is a good enough reason not to believe everything you read.

Can I ask you, are you a Christian?

 

[Lance_Iguana]

I am obvioulsy not referring to the new testament. Proverbs for example. The bible has been written over a period of 2000 years.

You mean 6000? The Buhhda comparisons are almost all New Testament, and are towards Jesus. Buhhdism has none of the Ritual laws that Judaism has, and about half of the 10 comandments are common sense, and many civilizations even had some of those laws before they where handed down to Moses.

The catholic church did not establish the bible or Christianity, Catholism is a counterfit organisation. If you got that from a History book, there is a good enough reason not to believe everything you read.

Peter was head of the Catholic Church, and the first Pope. The catholic church was the original church, but started to splinter when the church became corrupt. Gnostic teachings and Luther where the first examples of splintering denominations.

Can I ask you, are you a Christian?

Angnostic Pantheist. So no, I'm not a Christian.