Wednesday, February 13, 2008

Is God the creator and source of evil?



Here's another Q&A we can discuss!

Question:
Isaiah 45:7 says,"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

Does it mean God is the creator and source of evil?

-- Eddie

This question came to me through the Baptist section of AllExperts.com. Here's my reply:
How would you answer?

Hi Eddie,

This is an important question.

From a standard Baptist (and general Christian) perspective, God is the sole Creator, hence, "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

Therefore everything that exists, directly or indirectly, stems from God (HaShem: The One Whose Name is Holy).

For we humans time is very important. We (hopefully) seek to understand the past but can only theorize about the future. God however is not limited in any way. He sees the past, present and future the same.

This means that when HaShem created Lucifer He knew that he would rebel and become Satan, but He created him anyway.

Why?

Because it was in the Mind of God that humans should have free will rather than worship Him as zombies, so to speak. God ALLOWS Lucifer, his demons, and our own human weaknesses like greed and envy, to test our faith and facilitate our free will decisions to accept or reject Him and the Good. Our time on earth is the field in which this all important question is resolved.

To understand this process and its importance I recommend the Book of Job. In that wonderful biblical book Lucifer questions Job's faith and obedience to HaShem. 'He only worships you because you pay him off!' Lucifer challenges Job (note that Lucifer does NOT challenge HaShem, he challenges Job). But Lucifer is a liar and the father of all liars! Job aptly demonstrates that we humans have the free will and the potential integrity to say, 'Yea though He slays me, still I will submit to HaShem's Will!'

Some people seem to believe that God and Satan are dualistic opposites engaged in an eternal struggle, but this is not what the Bible teaches.

HaShem has no opposite!
HaShem has no equal!

God is One. God is Sovereign over ALL. However it is in the Will of this utterly One God that we have freedom. For this reason, in the world there is dualistic good and evil... and a fair amount of gray!... and it is our lot in life to decide where we stand.

"... as for me and my house, we will serve HaShem" -- Joshua 24:15

The choice is ours.

Hope this clarifies the issue for you.

May God's best be yours,
~Pastor John
~John of AllFaith


Ask John of AllFaith any question at Allexperts.com
The oldest and largest free answers service on the Internet.
Interfaith Religious Questions
Misc. Religious Questions
Bible Studies
Reincarnation/Transmigration
Hinduism
Gaudiya Vaisnavism (Hare Krsna)
General Christian Topics
The Bible and Homosexuality
Baptist Christianity
Or Contact John of AllFaith Directly

Read some of my Questions and Answers Here!

Its Not Too Late!

STOP HILLARY!
Vote for Obama in your state's primaries



From: "David Plouffe, BarackObama.com" <info@barackobama.com>
Subject: A big night

John --

Thanks to you, Barack won all three of today's contests decisively.

Virginia, Maryland, and Washington, DC join a sweep of eight straight victories since Barack won the most states and the most delegates on Super Tuesday.

But the race for the Democratic nomination remains close. It's going to be a fight for every vote and every delegate in the remaining 18 contests.

Each of us needs to take responsibility for getting as many people involved in this campaign as possible.

More than 400,000 people have donated to this campaign in 2008, and we are on course to reach half-a-million donors before the crucial March 4th primaries and caucuses.

Now is the time to step up and own a piece of this campaign.

If you make a donation of $25 now, your gift will be matched by another donor like you, doubling your impact.

Make a matching donation now:

https://donate.barackobama.com/match

The upcoming contests in Wisconsin, Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania will demand energy and resources on an unprecedented scale.

It's going to take all of us to keep these victories going. But if anyone is up to the task, it's this movement.

Thanks for your support,

David

David Plouffe
Campaign Manager
Obama for America

Donate To Defeat Hillary!


Tuesday, February 12, 2008

Raising Kids Spiritually


Here's another Q & A I thought worth sharing:


Hi, I am a mother of two children, a boy age 11 and a girl age 7. It was decided they would not be baptized, feeling that it would be imposing a religion on them that was accompanied with more hatred than love. This decision still brings about some confliction because although I believe in God, the teachings by others I've seen are hypocritical and full of fire and brimstone. Which, I feel is not what God is about.

My question to you is, How can I still do right by my children, giving them a faith or a belief that they can grasp to, while still giving them the choice as they grow to decide which religious or spiritual path they take?
I believe we are all here for a divine reason. I believe what we put out into the universe, is what we get back. I guess I'm trying to find the right spiritual teachers that can also help me to guide my children to an uplifting force instead of hateful worshipers.

I apologize for the length of my question, but I'm torn. As I see my children getting older, it feels as if time is slipping faster away.

Thanks for your time
Candy

My reply:
Your thoughts?

Hi Candy,

As parents (I have two now adult sons) we are responsible to teach our kids religious and spiritual values. It is the nature of kids to rebel against what they hold to be false (outdated etc) as they grow up. If we train our kids in a particular religious tradition or belief system they will be inclined to give it more credence as they age. If they see worth in it they may stay within the form they are raised in, but if, as they grow up, they decide the form or doctrines are bogus they will usually leave them or seek out new forms.

The difference is that adults who grow up without any religious training or beliefs usually never develop them while those who are raised with religious/spiritual faith generally maintain the foundational truths learned as a child. In other words, belief in God, respect for others, respect for life, faith, etc. As you said, "although I believe in God..."

It is, in my opinion, best to raise ones kids in the belief system one believes is right or best for them (both for the parents and the kids). In all things be honest with your kids (with due consideration for what they can comprehend of course). If you don't believe, as an example ONLY, in the Trinity of God, in Hell, etc. don't teach these things to your kids as though you do. Kids can smell hypocrisy a mile away! As they age its good to explain such concepts as things some people believe in and why you don't, so they will have a better understanding. This also encourages them to think for themselves and demonstrates that you encourage this form of independent thought.

Baptism is an ordinance of the Christian faith. Christening (of children), which I assume is what you mean, is an ordinance of part of that Church (not all). If you are not raising your kids in churches that hold to these ordinances there would be no reason to have your kids pass through them. Baptism and Christening are only ways of getting wet without faith in what they represent. Its the heart and the intent that matters, not the external ritual.

If your kids are still into being read to you might try reading stories to them from the various religious traditions. There are several good story-book style presentations of Noah and the Ark, of the Buddha's early life and enlightenment, etc. This can help the kids get a handle on the importance and existence of diversity of religious faith and belief. Whether they are or ever become people of faith, it is important that they understand the importance of religion both socially and politically, if not spiritually and personally.

I think you will want to do some more personal introspection as well and determine what you personally believe. Teachers are important of course, but introspection is vital. If there is a spouse/co-parent in the family (you don't say here) I'd discuss this with that person as well. If you are "on the same page" spiritually it will make things easier. If not, then not.

But determine what you believe and then allow your kids to see your faith in action. Attend religious service and invite (or gently require) your kids to join you (or go alone). When good things happen in your life spoken comments like, "Thank you God" both remind you of God's presence and bears witness to your kids that you are a "Believer." Likewise when difficulties arise, allow your kids to see you seek Divine help and guidance. The "prayer closet" has its place, but so does demonstrating faith to those around us. How else will they learn?

More than what we say, kids learn by what they see. So let them see your faith in action. I'm reminded of these verses:

James 2:14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith without thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works.
19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

Allow your kids to witness the works of your faith and they will understand.

If you pass a homeless person who looks hungry or asks for help, step into a restaurant and buy something for him/her to eat. Hand it to the person with the assurance that you will pray for his/her well being (I seldom just give such folks money). When you get back to your car, before leaving, bow your head and ask God to help the person. This should be done in all sincerity of course, but allow your kids to witness your faith in action. And if you say you are going to pray for someone, PRAY for them! This promise/assurance should never be used as merely something one says. There is much power in sincere prayer. Utilize it for the good.

If you have the time, volunteer at food pantries or similar places. Jesus says that the whole of the Law of God can be summed up as follows:

Love God with your whole heart.
Love your neighbor as you love yourself.

Faith does not require external religion, it requires internal intention. This of course is not to deny the importance of external religion, but that should be the byproduct of ones internal faith.

Show them your faith in action and everything will be fine.

Hope this helps,
~John of AllFaith

Sunday, February 10, 2008

How Did We Get The Bibles We Have Today?

How Did We Get The Bibles We Have Today?

Another Question Answered,

Your thoughts are invited below:

John asks:


Is the Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Protestant and Catholic Bible all the same? If there are differences, what are they and why? How long have they been different?

Thank you

Hi John,

The Eastern Orthodox (Greek, Armenian, Russian etc), Roman Catholic, Anglican and Protestant Bibles are basically the same, with some differences. You can find a side-by-side comparison at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_the_Bible

This is a very complex topic but I'll try and give a brief account here. You can always write back for more details if you wish.

In general terms, Irenaeus (2nd-3rd century CE), bishop of Lugdunum in Gaul, which is now Lyons, France, was given the task of determining which books would be included in the Christian cannon. When the Roman and Eastern Orthodox Churches (patriarchates) split a few changes were made, for instance the Eastern Church kept 2 Esdras while the Western Church did not.

When the Protestant Reformation took place (circa 1517 CE) the Reformers rejected the Apocrapha (ie the Books of Maccabees, the last chapter of Daniel -- Bel and the Dragon, etc.). Many of these were in the original 1611 Authorized King James but were later removed). Martin Luther also questioned the Book to the Hebrews (in part because it is anonymous), James, Jude and the Book of Revelation of Jesus Christ to John (aka the Apocalypse) but these books remain within the official Protestant cannon and indeed have become very important to Protestant doctrine.

The first recognized Hebrew cannon ("Old Testament") was ratified in 400 BCE.

In 367 CE Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria listed the books of our present New Testament using the term "canonized" (kanonizomena) to do so. This did not establish the Catholic Canon, but it does show the presence and official acceptance of our New Testament as it now exists dating from at least that point. Prior to Emperor Constantine's third century declaration of the establishment of the Universal Roman Church (ie the "Roman Catholic Church") the followers of Jesus used a very wide and diverse range of writings as scripture (including of course the Tanakh (or "Old Testament"). Over the years several other Church authorities made lists including the same books. However the cannon did not become official until much later:

For Roman Catholicism, at the Council of Trent in 1546
For the Church of England (Anglicanism) in 1563
For Protestants at large "the Bible" was the 1611 Authorized King James Version.
For Calvinism (the Westminster Confession of Faith) in 1647
For the Greek Orthodox (and thence the other Christian Orthodox communions) at the Synod of Jerusalem of 1672.

BUT the canons were already generally accepted, these declarations simply made them "official."

However, within these accepted and authorized biblical texts and canons is a wide and at times conflicting diversity. Since the beginning, Christians have debated which Bible version and which books were sanctioned by God and the Church and which were merely the teachings of at best tradition and at worse heresy.

It is said that the Apostle Paul never traveled without his copy of the Book of Enoch. Consider this verse from Jude verse 14 and 15:

"And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints.
To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him."

Now contrast this biblical quote with Enoch 1:9:

"And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones To execute judgement upon all, And to destroy all the ungodly: And to convict all flesh Of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed, And of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him."

According to Tertullian (circa 200 CE) the Book of Enoch was rejected by the Jews because it contained prophecies pertaining to the Messiah. Isn't it interesting that the Roman Church (and thence the Orthodox, Anglican and Protestant) rejected Paul's favorite book.

For Protestants, who brought the Bible to masses, the issue of which biblical source materials and which translation to rally around was largely resolved early on with the Authorized King James Version (although a couple of other good translations of the Textus Receptus (ie the "received biblical texts" most ancient versions were translated from) such as the Revised Standard Version came along hundreds of years later.

For Roman and Eastern Orthodox Christians there was the Syriac, Coptic, Ethiopic and Georgian translations as well as the Douay-Rheims and the Jerusalem Bible, but NO BIBLE VERSION in history had the impact or long life of the Authorized King James Version. For the past 1500 years the Authorized King James was THE Bible.

The KJV (of 1611) remained "the Bible" until our times. The historic Textus Receptus source material upon which Christianity was established is now being abandoned in exchange for less scholarly, less historically significant, recently unearthed texts of dubious origins, the copyrights of which are owned by secular book houses: "Follow the money honey."

These new bibles, such as the Good News For Modern Man, the New International Version, the Reader's Digest Bible, the New King James Version, the Inclusive Version etc. directly contradict the essential teachings of the Authorized King James Version (and the Textus Receptus from which it as most other ancient versions arise) countless times. It is not too much to say that these new bibles are creating a new christianity, one that is witnessing the Laodiciafication of the Christian religion (contrast Rev. 3:15-20). For examples of several of these doctrinal differences, see my http://www.allfaith.com/Religions/Christianity/kingjames.html where I contrast a few of the differences between the KJV and the NIV by referring various verses.

Hope this helps,
Write back any time,
Pastor John
John of AllFaith

Your thoughts?

Thursday, February 07, 2008

Vote For Obama! Stop Hillary! Clintons injects $5 million of their own to secure queenship!

You folks in the states that haven't vote yet, we're counting on you!!!

Stop Hillary!

Another letter from the Obama campaign that is worth considering. It is still possible to stop Hillary!

John --

Support this campaignI was writing a note to you about the state of the race after Super Tuesday when we got some startling news.

The Clinton campaign just announced that Hillary and Bill Clinton injected $5 million of their personal fortune into her campaign a few days ago.

This is a dramatic move, and a clear acknowledgement that our campaign has the momentum. We saw undeniable evidence of that last night as the results came in.

Barack Obama won the most states and the most delegates on February 5th.

We have gotten to this point thanks to an unprecedented outpouring of support from ordinary Americans.

To date, more than 650,000 people like you have taken ownership of this campaign, giving whatever they can afford.

The Clinton infusion of $5 million -- and there are reports it could end up being as much as $20 million -- will give them huge resources for the next set of primaries and caucuses.

Thanks to you, we have raised more than $3 million since the polls closed on February 5th. But we have no choice -- we must match their $5 million right now.

We're going to do it the right way, with small donations from people like you. It's never been more urgent that you make a donation of $25 right now:

https://donate.barackobama.com/results

Just two weeks ago we were behind by double-digits in many of the states that voted yesterday, but Barack won 13 states to 8 states for Hillary Clinton, with one state (New Mexico) still counting votes.

This is an enormous victory, and it's all thanks to you.

We won yesterday because thousands upon thousands of individual supporters canvassed their neighborhoods, talked to their neighbors and friends, and made phone calls to remind their fellow supporters to get out the vote.

And we accomplished all of this with a campaign funded by ordinary people giving only what they can afford.

Yesterday was proof that America is ready for change -- and that you are the force to make that change happen.

But there's still a long way to go before Barack becomes the Democratic nominee. In the next week alone, six more states will hold their primaries and caucuses.

We need to match this $5 million personal contribution from the Clintons immediately and put these resources to work in the states that will vote next.

Please make a donation of $25 now:

https://donate.barackobama.com/results

Here are some details about yesterday's historic victory. According to official results and exit polls:

  • Barack won 2-to-1 in traditionally conservative states where Democrats are hungry for a nominee who can change the map and help Democrats up and down the ticket win in November

  • Our winning coalition included Americans of every race, background, and gender -- including 64% of women in Georgia

  • We scored wins in every region of the country -- New England, the Mid-Atlantic, the South, the Midwest, the Rocky Mountain states, and the West

Americans had a clear choice to make yesterday, and they chose Barack Obama.

Now let's match this $5 million and take this campaign into the next stage.

Thank you,

David

David Plouffe
Campaign Manager
Obama for America

Vote Obama! Stop Hillary! $5 Million of their own money injected into Hillary bid

You folks in the states that haven't vote yet, we're counting on you!!!

Stop Hillary!

Another letter from the Obama campaign that is worth considering. It is still possible to stop Hillary!

John --

Support this campaignI was writing a note to you about the state of the race after Super Tuesday when we got some startling news.

The Clinton campaign just announced that Hillary and Bill Clinton injected $5 million of their personal fortune into her campaign a few days ago.

This is a dramatic move, and a clear acknowledgement that our campaign has the momentum. We saw undeniable evidence of that last night as the results came in.

Barack Obama won the most states and the most delegates on February 5th.

We have gotten to this point thanks to an unprecedented outpouring of support from ordinary Americans.

To date, more than 650,000 people like you have taken ownership of this campaign, giving whatever they can afford.

The Clinton infusion of $5 million -- and there are reports it could end up being as much as $20 million -- will give them huge resources for the next set of primaries and caucuses.

Thanks to you, we have raised more than $3 million since the polls closed on February 5th. But we have no choice -- we must match their $5 million right now.

We're going to do it the right way, with small donations from people like you. It's never been more urgent that you make a donation of $25 right now:

https://donate.barackobama.com/results

Just two weeks ago we were behind by double-digits in many of the states that voted yesterday, but Barack won 13 states to 8 states for Hillary Clinton, with one state (New Mexico) still counting votes.

This is an enormous victory, and it's all thanks to you.

We won yesterday because thousands upon thousands of individual supporters canvassed their neighborhoods, talked to their neighbors and friends, and made phone calls to remind their fellow supporters to get out the vote.

And we accomplished all of this with a campaign funded by ordinary people giving only what they can afford.

Yesterday was proof that America is ready for change -- and that you are the force to make that change happen.

But there's still a long way to go before Barack becomes the Democratic nominee. In the next week alone, six more states will hold their primaries and caucuses.

We need to match this $5 million personal contribution from the Clintons immediately and put these resources to work in the states that will vote next.

Please make a donation of $25 now:

https://donate.barackobama.com/results

Here are some details about yesterday's historic victory. According to official results and exit polls:

  • Barack won 2-to-1 in traditionally conservative states where Democrats are hungry for a nominee who can change the map and help Democrats up and down the ticket win in November

  • Our winning coalition included Americans of every race, background, and gender -- including 64% of women in Georgia

  • We scored wins in every region of the country -- New England, the Mid-Atlantic, the South, the Midwest, the Rocky Mountain states, and the West

Americans had a clear choice to make yesterday, and they chose Barack Obama.

Now let's match this $5 million and take this campaign into the next stage.

Thank you,

David

David Plouffe
Campaign Manager
Obama for America


Wednesday, February 06, 2008

A Note From Obama


My state, California, foolishly chose Hillary and McCain yesterday.

This is, in my opinion, a disastrous error in judgement because I don't think McCain can beat Hillary and because Hillary is... well a demon incarnate...

The race is not over yet though!

If you live in a state that has not yet voted YOU can turn this thing around!

VOTE FOR OBAMA! if you are registered as a Democrat or Independent.
VOTE FOR HUCKABEE if you are a registered Republican.

ONLY Obama can beat Hillary now for the Democratic nomination.

STOPPING THE BUSH/CLINTON DYNASTY IS JOB ONE!

Among the Republicans, I think Huckabee (who I disagree with on several issues) could rally both sides of that party and draw in many intelligent and patriotic Democrats. I also think he is a patriot who would try and block the implementation of the North American Union.

I believe John McCain MAY be a basically good man, but I don't think he can bring over enough Democrats to stop Hillary because of his constant support of the war. STOPPING HILLARY IS JOB ONE.

STOP THE CANDIDATE WHO:

BURNED TO DEATH THE CHILDREN, WOMEN AND MEN OF WACO

WHO CRAFTED AND IMPLEMENTED NAFTA

WHO VOTED FOR AND SUPPORTS THE WARS IN IRAQ AND ELSEWHERE

WHO HAS PUBLICLY STATED HER INTENTION TO INVADE IRAN

WHO SUPPORTS THE DIVISION OF JERUSALEM

WHO WILL TAKE AWAY THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO OWN AND BEAR ARMS

WHO WILL FURTHER THE BUSH FASCIST AGENDA IN ALL AREAS

WHO SAID: "Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price." [sound familiar?]

"
I believe in a zone of privacy" [ie not in personal privacy rights]

"
I'm not going to have some reporters pawing through our papers. We are the president." [ie who at least co-ran the Clinton White House and therefore shares responsibility for the treasonous acts committed. Acts like deliberately murdering by inferno the Branch Davidians in cold blood (which was directly ordered by Hillary), like forcing NAFTA in, the treaty that will soon lead to the replacing of the USA by the North American Union, who raped the governmental coffers in offer to "balance the budget," etc. etc.

"
If I want to knock a story off the front page, I just change my hairstyle" [ie who does such things! Who brags and jests about controlling the media for her own advantages! No patriotic co-president would say such a thing!]

"
In the aftermath of September 11, and as the 9/11 Commission report so aptly demonstrates, it is clear that our intelligence system is not working the way that it should." [ie she plans to follow in Bush's footsteps and increase surveillance on American citizens and continue stripping away our privacy and other rights]

"In the Bible it says they asked Jesus how many times you should forgive, and he said 70 times 7. Well, I want you all to know that I'm keeping a chart." [First, that expression meant we must show unlimited forgiveness, secondly Hillary's statement demonstrates the calculating nature of this demon. She has lists. Make no mistake about it!]

"
In too many instances, the march to globalization has also meant the marginalization of women and girls. And that must change." [ie she supports globalization and the implementation of the NWO and the global ridership of the Bildeberg Elite.]

"
Let's not leave an educational vacuum to be filled by religious extremists who go to families who have no other option and offer meals, housing and some form of education. If we are going to combat extremism then we must educate those very same children." [ie she plans to wage war on religious freedom, to gain control of charitable religious organizations and to determine which beliefs are and are not acceptable. Those that are not, she will prohibit]

"
The American people are tired of liars and people who pretend to be something they're not." [Apparently not! Hillary will probably be the democratic nomination if We the People don't stop her. Just recall how she shed crocodile tears recently and went up in the polls! The American Sheeple bought it hook line and sinker! It looks like the American people would prefer a contestant on an episode Jerry Springer to a decent and loyal patriot!]

"Probably my worst quality is that I get very passionate about what I think is right." [Just think about the things she thinks is right!]

"
We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society." [Bye bye individual rights!]



Hillary's Leadership In Action
She burned innocent American children, women and men to death!

Later her friend Dubya signed away the sovereignty of the US in the same town (Click Here!)


Vote for Obama in the Primaries!

Then for McCain or whoever the Republicans run in the general

Its the only shot we have left!

Now a note from Obama:

John --

The votes will be counted into the night and into tomorrow, but today we won states and we won delegates in every part of the country.

As of right now, we have won more states and delegates than Senator Clinton. It's a remarkable achievement we can all be proud of.

Tonight, we know one thing for sure -- our time has come, our movement is real, and change is coming to America.

At this moment in history, the stakes are too high and the challenges too great to play the same Washington game with the same Washington players and expect a different result.

This time must be different.

There will be those who say it cannot be done. But we know what we have seen and what we believe -- that when ordinary people come together we can still do extraordinary things.

Yes, we can.

Thank you so much,

Barack

STOP HILLARY!

Tuesday, February 05, 2008

Two Biblical Creation Accounts?

The Earth belongs to HaShem
"The Earth belongs to HaShem and the Fullness Thereof."

By Ben Ruach haKodesh (John of AllFaith) © 2.5.08

Most people seem to be unaware that there are two different creation accounts taught in early Genesis, but of course there are. So how are we to understand this?

The most held-to view is that the first account gives an overview of a single creation and then the second adds more details parenthetically. I can not accept this view.

In my opinion a key to unlocking this mystery is found at Gen 2:4: "These are the generations of the heaven and of the earth when they were created, in the day that HaShem G-d made earth and heaven." (JPS)

Note that these accounts record "the generations" plural of the heaven ("heavens" in the KJV) and the earth.

There were "generations" of the heaven and the earth.

When studying the Bible (or any other ancient work) we need to consider the context in which it was written and the level of understanding and preexisting beliefs of the intended recipients. The people living around 1450-1410 BCE did not have telescopes and so on and their lack of scientific knowledge needs to be considered in order to correctly understand the texts granted them. Hence we read at Gen 1:16-18, "And G-d made the two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; and the stars. And G-d set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness; and G-d saw that it was good" (JPS).

We today understand that the moon is not a light. The light that appears to come from it is but the sun's reflection. Despite this, it looks like a "lesser light" and that is how the people understood it.

Master Y'shua (Lord Jesus) gave us insight here when he said, "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now." (John 16:12).

As was common with most works of antiquity the Bible does not present itself as a scientific thesis but as a reflection of the understandings of the people dealt with and their relationships to the God of their understanding.

Had HaShem presented a detailed account of exactly how He created the heavens and the earth and their generations we today still would not be able to comprehend it. God utterly transcends human consciousness.

Thankfully God is all merciful and presents information in ways we can grasp, often with effort.

Our modern day scientific just-the-facts global paradigm is a relatively new phenomenon. The ancients were interested in the powers behind the manifest, not so much the manifest itself. This difference in perspective can be seen in the parting of the Red Sea. When I was young and heard this account my only thought was, "Oh my God is powerful!" Today the Discovery Channel (a US Secular Humanist TV channel, not sure if its in the UK or not) runs documentaries attempting to explain that it was not "the Red Sea," that "proto-Moses" parted by "God's power," which is quite large and would indeed be miraculous, but "the Reed Sea" which is quite small and has unusual cross currents that sometimes effect the water in odd ways.

The ancients wanted to see God's Hand at work, today most people want to explain it away (even as the prophets foretold). This is evidence of a major paradigm shift that has occurred over the past hundred years or so.

The point is, if we study the Bible from a modern-day mindset we will miss and misconstrue much of what it is saying. As the teacher said, "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him" (Hebrews 11:6).

Faith is essential. The Holy One can not be placed in a test tube.

My understanding then is that the early Hebrews to whom Moses wrote were well acquainted with the earlier Sumarian legions and that many of his teachings are piggybacked onto theirs. This in no way nullifies them. Our beliefs are also piggybacked onto earlier teachings, be they those of the scriptures or of Einstein and Darwin. There is nothing new under the sun (Ecl. 1:9).

I also see however, from Gen.2:4 cited above (and elsewhere) that Moses understood that the most recent "creation" of the earth he knew was not the first creation to occur. In the first instance (Gen 1:1-2:3) he speaks of the way back time when God first created the heavens and the earth and placed unnamed humans into it. As he spoke of Adam and Eve (by name) in the second creation account, the progenitors of the humans he knew, so too Moses references the unnamed first humans and the genesis of their world. Tradition speaks of the first Adam (lit. "human") and his wife Lilith but that is a topic for another study.

In the second creation account (Gen 2:4-) Moses tells about the world he knows. The destruction or purification that occurred prior to the second creation account is referenced in the works of other traditions as, for instance, the releasing of the "brahmastra weapons" that were like massively more potent nuclear weapons than we thus far have developed and that were released following the War of Kuruksetra. Again, this would be a topic for another discussion. The point is, this view has at least as solid support as the single creation interpretation.

While we do not know how many "beginnings" there have may been, we do get an insight from the following:

    II Peter 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
    4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
    5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
    6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
    7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
    8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
    9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

A careful reading of such verses and other sources leads me to conclude that due to God's infinite mercy the earth (the realm of mortal man) is created, humanity develops, spiritually and technologically evolves and devolves and eventually it becomes necessary, due to God's love and justice, to intervene and purify the planet by various means.

We are, in my opinion, fast approaching such a purification.

    Matt. 24:And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake [ie the Jews] those days shall be shortened.

To me then, "time" is cyclical.

I believe that Adam and Eve, whether regarded as literal people or as metaphors for the survivors of such a time of purification (I believe they were literal survivors, although not the only survivors, whose descendants came through Noah's son Shem, hence they are called Semites: ie the Jews and other Semitic peoples) passed their memories down orally through their generations. Moses received these oral traditions from various sources and was inspired by HaShem to record them in the Holy Torah (the Five Books of Moses, ie Genesis through Deuteronomy).

Children
Of Noah All
The Noahide Nazarene Way
AllFaith.com: Judaism
AllFaith.com: Christianity
AllFaith Spirituality
Interfaith Prayer Group
AllFaith.com

Monday, February 04, 2008

I would ask if an American Christian can be an American patriot and a loyal citizen?

My Baptist Pastor brother Tim sent me the following and asked for my thoughts. I'd like to share this with you and see what you think: Can an American Christian be an American patriot and a loyal citizen? First the unedited post in question from someone writing to him, then my in-line reply:

I would ask if an American Christian can be an American patriot and a loyal citizen?

Theologically, no. Because his allegiance is to the "one true God" above all else.

Religiously, no. Because no other religion is accepted by them except their own.

Scripturally , no. Because they are told in their Bible that nothing comes before their god.

Geographically, no. Because his allegiance is to the kingdom of heaven.

Socially, no. Because his allegiance is to other like minded people, and obviously as evidenced by the preceding e-mail, they are capable of stirring up hate for other religions or ethnic groups.

Politically, no. Because they are led by the "preachers" of their religion to follow the "morals" set forth by those leaders.

Domestically, no. Because he (males) are instructed in their Bible to be the ruler of their household, women are instructed to be subservient to the male.

Intellectually, no. Because he cannot accept the American Constitutions premise that all men are created equal, including those that believe in other powers or gods.

Philosophically, no. Because any religious or moral differences are looked at with suspicion and fear. There is no way but the "Christian" way.

Spiritually, no. Because when we declare 'one nation under God,' the Christian's God is portrayed as loving and kind, or with a wrath capable of destroying all in his path, depending on the "Christian's" mood. Their god is the one we must all bow down to.

Therefore after having been raise in a "Christian" household, after having the "Christian" ideas shoved down my throat and beaten into me for years, and after having experienced the "Christian" ideals.... perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL CHRISTIAN in this country. They obviously cannot be both 'good' Christians and good Americans. Call it what you wish.....it's still the truth.

If you find yourself intellectually in agreement with the above statements, perhaps you will share this with your friends. The more who understand this, the better it will be....for the religious war is bigger and more complex than most Americans currently know or understand.

''''I THINK SOME RED FLAGS SHOULD BE GOING UP HERE''''
[I think this last line is from Tim]


My reply:
[Tim] wrote:

John what do think of this e-mail Tim

/2/2008 11:10:14 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
From:

I would ask if an American Christian can be an American patriot and a loyal citizen?

Yes. It would be possible IF the United States were pursuing a course of peace and justice in the world, if it recognized the sanctity of life from conception to the grave and if it awarded Christians the freedom to share their faith without hindrance.
However, as this clearly is no longer the case, in today's world, I would answer no. I don't see how a devout Christian would not be inclined to express loyalty to a nation such as the US is becoming. The US is embracing the ways of Antichrist.

Theologically, no. Because his allegiance is to the "one true God" above all else.

This point would not prohibit Christians from loyalty or patriotism if they had cause to believe the US had godly intentions. Rather, they would seek to further God's will from within the structure of the nation. This is how the US was for most of our history. A church may not be perfect but the members can use its structure to further God's will. If the church becomes apostate however the Christians will move on. Christians are now disavowing their loyalty to this increasingly godless and anti-God nation.

Religiously, no. Because no other religion is accepted by them except their own.

Not so because Christianity does not, in its modern history, support the denial of religious freedoms to those of other faiths. American Christians understand that the same Constitutional protections that once granted them religious liberty here also grants it to all other faiths. For Christians, the presence of other religions merely offers a close-to-home missions field. While Christianity is traditionally an exclusive Path, for the past few hundred years it has not sought to outlaw or restrict the practice of other religions. Christian patriotism does not require all members of the society to be Christian.

Scripturally, no. Because they are told in their Bible that nothing comes before their god.

True. Nothing comes before God for devout Christians, however as shown by groups like the Salvation Army, the Christian Children's Fund and so on many other things are very important: family, friends, justice, mercy, compassion, health, stability etc. etc. The Christian will not bow before the government of any nation as being supreme, however respect for the government was clearly taught by Jesus who said, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars, but unto God the things that are Gods." Political loyalty is commanded of Christians in many places in the Bible.

Geographically, no. Because his allegiance is to the kingdom of heaven.

Not quite. His (her) allegiance is to the King (Jesus), not to the Kingdom. When it pleases to the King to establish the Kingdom the Christian will certainly be happy, but until then he (she) will remain loyal to the nation in which God has seen fit to place her (him). Until the physical manifestation of the Kingdom occurs, the Christian dwells within the inner Kingdom in complete obedience to first the King, and then the nation in which he/she lives as the King has ordered.

Socially, no. Because his allegiance is to other like minded people, and obviously as evidenced by the preceding e-mail, they are capable of stirring up hate for other religions or ethnic groups.

Anyone is capable of stirring up hate or any other emotion. The Christian however is forbidden to do so by his/her Lord. If he disobeys it is due to his lack of obedience not to the commands he is supposed to follow. I have not seen the reference d e-mail but I have certainly been the brunt of Christian hatred and prejudice. Such short fallings speak to the spiritual immaturity of the Christian, not to the Church of Jesus or the God it seeks to serves. No one, including Christians, are without sin and error.

Politically, no. Because they are led by the "preachers" of their religion to follow the "morals" set forth by those leaders.

Many are, however again this is in violation of the Message they are supposed to send forth. Jesus' message what that the "Sabbath is made for man, not man for the Sabbath" while Paul reminds us that, "Nothing is unclean of itself, but to him who deems a thing unclean, for him it is." In other words, Christians, as a general statement, are ignorant of the biblical teachings. this does not however alter the true teachings of our Master.

Domestically, no. Because he (males) are instructed in their Bible to be the ruler of their household, women are instructed to be subservient to the male.

Such rules are based on first century culture and customs. It is also said that the wives are to submit to the husbands as the husband submits to Christ. IF the husband is submitted to Christ he will not lord it over his wife. Like Christ, he will empower her to attain her best. Again, in Genesis it is said that Eve was taken from Adam's side. Why? To walk beside her not over her. We must appreciate the 2100 years that divide us from the first century and "rightly divide the Word of truth."

Intellectually, no. Because he cannot accept the American Constitutions premise that all men are created equal, including those that believe in other powers or gods.

And yet those same writers wrote that the Constitution was written under the assumption that Americans would always be a religious people because the system it implemented was 'wholly unworkable for any other.' The founders of the US, most of whom were Christians with Deist leanings, envisioned the US as a country of religious, mainly Christian, people where no particular religious body would hold undue authority. It worked fairly well until 1913 when the US fell and the independent Federal Reserve Board and the Counsel on Foreign relations (1921) was born.

Christians believe that ALL men are created equal: sinners in need of Jesus. There is no problem here. Christianity seeks to rectify the human condition and thereby to better society.

Philosophically, no. Because any religious or moral differences are looked at with suspicion and fear. There is no way but the "Christian" way.

This is correct. So what? As citizens of a free country Christians have the right to their beliefs the same as all others. This does not stop them from working with others for the social good. Everyone believes their way is best.

Spiritually, no. Because when we declare 'one nation under God,' the Christian's God is portrayed as loving and kind, or with a wrath capable of destroying all in his path, depending on the "Christian's" mood. Their god is the one we must all bow down to.

This is actually a new addition to the pledge that wasn't added until the 1930's. I personally believe it is wholly inaccurate and should be removed from the pledge and from US currency. The US today is clearly not a nation under God. The US government is in fact in direct opposition to the Christian God on many many topics. The problem here is not the Christian's attitude to the statement, but the statement itself. The US is certain not united religiously.

Therefore after having been raise in a "Christian" household, after having the "Christian" ideas shoved down my throat and beaten into me for years, and after having experienced the "Christian" ideals.... perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL CHRISTIAN in this country. They obviously cannot be both 'good' Christians and good Americans. Call it what you wish.....it's still the truth.

It depends on what you mean by "good Americans." If your view of "good Americans" is to march lock-step with the Secular Humanist views and globalist agenda that is creating a nation the country's founders never envisioned, then I'm inclined to agree. true Christians can not in good conscious support the evil emerging from the White House and Congress.

If however you mean they can not be good patriots of this land, willing to stand and fight the emerging one world system and the evil it is bringing, then I must disagree. IF the Christians in this nation would rise and stand this evil would stop and out nation would be saved and returned to its Constitutional basis. Unfortunately, as our prophets foretold, this is not likely. Of the Christian religion today Jesus tells John:

Rev.3:15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:
18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.
19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.

The Christian Church today, as a general statement, has become lukewarm and hypocritical and God is, even now, vomiting it from His mouth.

If you find yourself intellectually in agreement with the above statements, perhaps you will share this with your friends. The more who understand this, the better it will be....for the religious war is bigger and more complex than most Americans currently know or understand.

The war is absolutely coming soon. There is no question about this. Christians, Jews and others will be gunned down in the streets, shipped away to Black Sites for torture and eventual death.

Yes my friend, the war is coming:

Matt. 24:21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

In the short term, you're side will win glorious victories, but in the long term, to save the Jews:

Matt. 24:22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.

Gen 12:2 And I will make of thee [Jews] a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:
3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.


''''I THINK SOME RED FLAGS SHOULD BE GOING UP HERE''''

I don't see why Tim. This is nothing new. The prophecies are being fulfilled before our eyes every day. You are a minister my brother, this can not be a surprise to you. I'll post this to my blog and see what others think.

Shalom,
John

How Many Gods Are There Really?

I am now getting up my SriJagannatha.com web domain after its move to the new server. As I was doing so I re-wrote the following and thought it might be of some interest here:

What are your thoughts? Share them below! How many Gods are there?

How Many Gods Are There Really?

Ek Devata!

By John of AllFaith © 12.19.07
From the earliest Aryan periods of Hindu thought, the existence of a single supreme deity has been present. People usually credit Zoroaster or Abraham as the father of monotheism (the worship of a single God), however the Indian Vedas (Books of Knowledge) taught the doctrine long before either of the great prophets were born.

As we read in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 3.9.1:

"Then Vidaghdha, son of Shakala, asked him, "How many gods are there, Yajnavalkya?" Yajnavalkya, ascertaining the number through a group of mantras known as the Nivid, replied, "As many as are mentioned in the Nivid of the gods: three hundred and three, and three thousand and three."

"Very good," said the son of Shakala, "and how many gods are there, Yajnavalkya?"

"Thirty-three."

"Very good, and how many gods are there, Yajnavalkya?"

"Six."

"Very good, and how many gods are there, Yajnavalkya?"

"Three."

"Very good, and how many gods are there, Yajnavalkya?"

"Two."

"Very good, and how many gods are there, Yajnavalkya?"

"One and a half."

"Very good, and how many gods are there, Yajnavalkya?"

"Ek [one]."

So, what of the other "three thousand, three hundred and five" gods (some say even more)? Here is where we find the heart of Hindu theology.

First, we must understand that Hinduism is not a single religion like Christianity, Judaism, Islam and so on, it is the composite of many different religious traditions blended together into an intended unity. These diverse religions, when taken as a group, are known as the Sanatana Dharma or Universal Truth or Way. The name "Hinduism" is a slang term that has generally been accepted as though this were a single religion. Similar to the way the Religious Society of Friends is better known as "Quakers," an originally pejorative term that they chose to embrace.

"Hindus" differ one from another in many significant respects and over the millennium the principle deities they worship have shifted and transformed as well. Today, the majority of Hindus worship "forms" or "emanations" of Vishnu/Narayana, Siva/Rudra, or Devi -- generally speaking. Practically no one worships Lord Brahma as a principle deity, although all acknowledge his role as temporal creator.

Most Hindus conceive of God in transcendence, which is to say, they readily acknowledge that the specific names and forms attributed to "God" are but limited conceptions of That Which Is Beyond Comprehension (apart from Self Realization and even then the Truth, when spoken, is clouded by illusion). God is more.

Many Hindus worship various forms of Visnu/Narayana such as Sri Krsna (Krishna) or Sri Ramacandra. They follow the teachings of scriptures such as the Mahabharata, the Srimad Bhagavad Gita (you can read my free online translation Click Here), the Ramayana and so on. They also accept all of the standard texts like the Upanishads, Puranas and so on.

Others conceive of God in forms of Lord Siva (Shivah, Rudra... and his consort Parvati), and revere scriptures such as the Tirukural (Click Here).

Others worship the Goddess (Devi) in Her various forms, as Kali, Durga, etc. and read scriptures such as the Devi Gita, the Devi Mahatmya and so on.

These of course are only the more significant divisions. Hinduism is incredibly rich and diverse.

In popular Hinduism most Hindus honor all the various deities. Families as well as individuals tend to have what are known as ista devatas or personal "house gods" that are honored. For instance, a Vaisnava worships Lord Vishnu, however at home he/she might specifically worship Lord Jagannatha due to some tradition or some specific event in the family's or individuals past. This appears like polytheism to those who do not properly understand what is being done. For Hindus however it is the honoring of specific aspects of the One.

Despite this, the concept is generally held in mind, even if it is not usually voiced, that, as the ancient Rg Veda says, "Truth is one, the sages call it by different names." or as cited above, there is only Ek Devata, the one true and utterly transcendent God, despite the seeming plurality.

For one who principally worships Lord Siva, the worship of Lord Visnu is not problematic (nor is the worship of Lord Siva for Vaisnavas). There may be some "sibling rivalry" that argues that Siva is higher than Visnu or vice versa, but in the end, Hindus believe that Truth is One.

Then there are the multitudinous demi-gods or lesser gods who act as governors in the service of the Ek Devata. They fulfill specific "functions," for instance, when beginning some new undertaking both Vaisnavas, Sivaites and worshipers of the Great Goddess will often invoke the blessings of Lord Ganapati (the elephant-headed Lord Ganesha, son of Lord Siva and Goddess Parvati).

For most Hindus, the true identity of "the ultimate God" is not what matters and is seldom discussed or even considered. No one can know Ek Devata fully. The important thing is what we might consider "spirituality" or the living of a spiritual life, and tradition. Hindus understand that God transcends all superficiality, diversities and personal preferences. Hindus therefore knowingly worship the One God in diverse forms as best suits their individual or community needs and traditions.

Then there is the arguably more philosophical side of Hinduism (inspired by the Buddha), often referred to as Vedanta, or the "End of the Vedas." Masters such as Srila Sankara (circa 800 CE) developed the Path of Impersonalism, wherein the various deities are seen metaphorically rather than as literal gods and goddesses to be worshiped.

Although Sikhism now exists as a separate religion, it did develop within a Hindu/Indian context and it is important to note the ten Sikh guru's developments here, where the One God is seen as Sound (Nam) that transcends all form and yet, unlike with the Vedantists, Sikhs continue to accept and worship an individual transcendent "God" within nirguna (hence Sikhs have altered the traditional meaning of this concept). Many Hindus accept this teaching as well. In other words, most Hindus believe in a Self-existing personal God.

Guru Nanak once visited Jagannatha Puri, one of Hinduism's four holiest mandirs or temples. As usual, he did not visit as a votary, but "to teach the people that the worship of God was superior to the worship of the deity." The high priest recognized Guru Nanak and invited him to take part in the artik or ceremony. Guru Nanak declined the honor, which outraged the priests. He replied by raising his eyes to heaven and uttering a most beautiful Sabad (divine utterance). This Sabad reflects the Sikh view of God nicely:

The sun and moon, O Lord, are Thy lamps; the firmament Thy salver; the orbs of the stars, the pearls encased in it.

The perfume of the sandal [tree] is Thine incense; the wind is Thy fan;

all the forests are Thy flowers, O Lord of light.

What worship is this, O Thou Destroyer of birth?

Unbeaten strains of ecstasy are the trumpets of Thy worship.

Thou hast a thousand eyes and yet not one eye;

Thou hast a thousand forms and yet not one form;

Thou hast a thousand pure feet and yet not one foot;

Thou hast a thousand organs of smell and yet not one organ

I am fascinated by this play of Thine.

The Light which is in everything is Thine, O Lord of Light.

From its brilliancy everything is brilliant;

By the Guru's teaching the light becometh manifest.

What pleaseth Thee is the real Arti.

O God, my mind is fascinated with Thy lotus feet as the

Bumble bee with the flower: night and day I thirst for them.

Give the water of Thy grace to the sarang note 28., Nanak, so that he may dwell in Thy name.

    (Dhanasri Mohalla).

The One God exists in utter transcendence.

It is argued that Srila Sankara's doctrine arose in India as a reaction to Buddhism. Those who adopted this view felt that the religions of the Sanatana Dharma had developed into superstitions and vain traditions, that they had lost their spiritual potency. They blamed this development, and the perceived corruption of the Brahminical hierarchy, for the rise of the Buddhadharma (Buddhism) in India (circa 5th century BCE). That new dharma (religion) threatened to destroy traditional Hinduism and Vedantists viewed themselves as reformers and saviors of the Sanatana Dharma. This view seeks to filter out all cultural influences and achieve the distilled wisdom of the Vedas (i.e. the 'end of the Vedas') in its pure form. It remains very popular.

While the majority of religious Hindus continue to worship Ek Devata through the ancient gods and goddesses thanks to masters such as Srila Ramakrishna, Srila Vivekananda, and so many others, Vedanta has been fully incorporated into popular Hinduism, giving it a more eclectic and universal appeal than previously. Many Impersonalists, sometimes known as Mayavadis, worship murtis (deity images) but see them as symbols or holders of truth rather than as distinct or literal manifest gods/goddesses.

Rather than the heavenly "pleasure groves" of the spiritual world sought by "Personalist" Hindus, the "Impersonlists" seek a unified field of being that is practically indistinguishable from the Buddhist concept of Nirvana (for this reason, many people consider Shankaracharya a closet Buddhist, while others credit him as the savior of the Hindu dharma). My view falls somewhere in between. I hold Srila Sankara in the utmost respect.

For the personalists, the neti-neti or Not-this Not-that state of being that is achieved by this impersonalist samadhi (in "nirguna Brahman"), is but the shining effulgence of the Personality of Godhead and hence is typically accepted as a "lesser truth" or enshrouded realization.

Hence, within Hinduism, there is room for both personalist and impersonalist approaches. Monotheism, polytheism, animism and non-theism are present as well. The Sanatana Dharma is truly all-inclusive. Indeed, all religions technically belong to the "Sanatana Dharma" as all are seeking the Universal Truth!

Here is the essential difference between these two views:

Material reality is said to be "saguna". This is to say, "sa" or with and "guna" or qualities, i.e. separate existences. For personalists, upon moksa or liberation, the atman (the individual self or being or "jiva") continues to exist in the presence of God, the Paramatman ("param" highest, "atman" Self or Being). Material existence is seen as real, but temporary. Spiritual reality is understood to be real and eternal.

For impersonalists, material nature is not real but illusion (or maya). These "Mayavadis" (affirmers of the doctrine of the illusion of manifest existence) believe that upon moksa (liberation) the atman (as the falsely perceived individual self) awakens to the truth that everything is in reality non-differentiated oneness, not-this, not-that or neti-neti, and utterly beyond all duality. The material multiverse is hence deemed as merely an illusion, a dream from which the atman (embodied self) eventually awakens at liberation (as the Self realizes her true oneness with Paramatman). The jiva does not "become God" but rather realizes that everything, including "God" is but aspect-less (nirguna) Whole.

From this perspective then there are technically no gods or goddesses. "God" is not a differentiated Being from anything else. Param-atman (the individual highest Being) is but the non-differentiated totality of Awareness/Existence. Again, essentially the same as in Buddhism.

So to sum this up,

It would therefore be inaccurate to refer to this branch of Hinduism as either monotheistic or polytheistic, it is decidedly non-theistic.

Popular Hinduism appears polytheistic at times, and a few Hindus actually are, but by and large, Hindus are monotheistic, even though their conceptions are a bit different from those of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The Ek Devata or One God of the Hindus is utterly transcendental to all description.

As Sri Krsna, beloved avatar of Sri Visnu explains:

Srimad Bhagavad Gita 10:12-15:

Arjuna said: You [Sri Krsna/Visnu] are the Supreme Brahman, the Highest Abode, the Ultimate Purifier, the Eternal Person, the Divine Primeval God, unborn and all pervading! All the seers describe You thus, including the divine rishi Narada, Asitah, Devala and Vyasa, and now You confirm it to me Yourself.

I accept as truth everything You are telling me, O Keshava. O Blessed One, Your manifestations are not even understood by the devas or danavas. Oh Supreme Person, You alone know Yourself by Yourself, O Source of all beings, Master of all beings, God of gods and Ruler of the universe!

From the Svetasvatara Upanishad 6.11:

He is the Sole Supreme Being; of eternal manifestation; Creator, Immanent Reality; Without Fear, Without Rancor; Timeless Form; Un-incarnated; Self-existent; Realized by the grace of the Holy Preceptor [Guru].
Om
Jai Jagannatha!
Sri Jagannatha Home Page
Srimad Bhagavad Gita
AllFaith.com Sanatana Dharma Pages
AllFaith.com: Sikhism
AllFaith.com: Buddhism
AllFaith Spirituality
Interfaith Prayer Group
AllFaith.com


Saturday, February 02, 2008

A Question About Tithing


Here's another AllExperts' Q and A that might arouse some discussion. Agree or disagree with my answer?

David asks:
Are we released from tithing under grace?


My reply.
What are your thoughts?

Hi David,

We are not only released from paying tithes, it was never required of us (assuming you are not Jewish).

Tithing was the Jewish income tax.

In ancient times religion and politics were often wed, as is still the case today with Islam where the "deen" or religion and "ummah" or nation are one. In the same way, although Judaism began as a Semitic ethnic group (it was never a race despite common beliefs) it was more accurately thought of as a nation in biblical times (the earthly kingdom of God in exile). Citizens of that kingdom were ordered to pay an income tax, a flat tax of 10% of all gross income (be it money, animals etc.).

As the early Jewish followers of Jesus debate Gentile conversion in the Book of Acts it is clear that they consider themselves a "religion" rather than a "nation" as they pointedly were 'waiting for a kingdom not made by human hands.' Jesus came to be viewed more as the spiritual savior of the world rather than as a reigning king (Meshiach or Messiah). As people attempting to follow Jesus we are to submit our whole selves unto God. Our tithe then is 100%, not just 10%. We are to consider ourselves stewards of all things granted us by our Master.

Once the Kingdom of God is established there will probably be a proclamation made that everyone must tithe 10%, time will tell, but during "the Church Age" tithing is still only in effect for Jews.

Jesus references the tithes of the Jews several times in the Gospels. Virtually every person he spoke with, with only a handful of exceptions, were Jews. Indeed Jesus said he only came to minister to Jews (Matt 15:24), but outside of that, only the Book of Hebrews mentions tithes and it does so in each case as a historical reference (ex. Heb 7:9).

As you probably know, not all Christians will agree with this answer however I am convinced it is correct. If one wishes to have a congregation and offer various programs one needs money, lots of it... believe me I know... and teaching the people they must tithe is an effective way to raise funds. The truth is however, this is not a biblical requirements for Christians. Christians should be taught that everything they possess is holy and belongs to God and that they should invest their possessions in the coming Kingdom by supporting their local congregations and various other efforts as they feel led of the Holy Spirit.

Hope this helps,
~Pastor John

Ask John of AllFaith any question at Allexperts.com
The oldest and largest free answers service on the Internet.
Interfaith Religious Questions
Misc. Religious Questions
Bible Studies
Reincarnation/Transmigration
Hinduism
Gaudiya Vaisnavism (Hare Krsna)
General Christian Topics
The Bible and Homosexuality
General Christian Topics
Baptist Christianity
Or Contact John of AllFaith Directly

Read the Questions and Answers Here!


Thursday, January 31, 2008

A Cowboy Goes To A Big City Church

From my brother:

Cowboy in Church
One Sunday morning an old cowboy entered a church just before services were to begin. Although the old man and his clothes were spotlessly clean, he wore jeans, a denim shirt and boots that were very worn and ragged. In his hand he carried a worn out old hat and an equally worn out Bible.
The church he entered was in a very upscale and exclusive part of the city. It was the largest and most beautiful church the old cowboy had ever seen. The people of the congregation were all dressed with
expensive clothes and accessories.
As the cowboy took a seat, the others moved away from him. No one greeted, spoke to, or welcomed him. They were all appalled at his appearance and did not attempt to hide it.
As the old cowboy was leaving the church, the preacher approached him and asked the cowboy to do him a favor. "Before you come back in here again, have a talk with God and ask him what he thinks would be
appropriate attire for worship."
The old cowboy assured the preacher he would.
The next Sunday, he showed back up for the services wearing the same ragged jeans, shirt, boots, and hat. Once again he was completely shunned and ignored.
The preacher approached the man and said, "I thought I asked you to speak to God before you came back to our church."
"I did," replied the old cowboy.
"If you spoke to God, what did He tell you the proper attire should be for worshiping in here?" asked the preacher.
"Well, sir, God told me that He didn't have a clue what I should wear. He said He'd never been in this church."