Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

4565Re: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Re: Voodoo, Wicca, Satanism, Native American Shamanism

Expand Messages
  • etznab@aol.com
    Mar 9, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      I think there were more members than that
      During the time of Darwin Gross. Someone
      at atom.org suggested 3 million by the time
      Darwin was ousted.

      I never heard that number during my time
      in Eckankar (beginning 1987). The number
      that does come to mind is 50,000 +.

      If those figures you gave are correct then
      membership has declined, I suspect.

      BTW, there was an article in paper today
      about a new study about religious members.
      Part of the title read "Those claiming to have
      no religion on increase" The report was from
      The Program on Public Values at Trinity Coll-
      ege in Hartford, Conn. They surveyed "54,461
      adults in English or Spanish from February
      through November of last year".


      -----Original Message-----
      From: jonathanjohns96 <jonathanjohns96@...>
      To: EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Mon, 9 Mar 2009 3:06 pm
      Subject: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Re: Voodoo, Wicca, Satanism,
      Native American Shamanism


      You also mention the "Eckists as elitists" trait (my words). I will be
      including that fact in my discussion in this post.

      You also stated "I do respect other's rights to their religious beliefs
      and practices, but admit that I am concerned and bothered by fanatics,
      fundalmentalists and radicals. In fact, these factions are pretty

      I understand your concern over "fanatics and radicals," but only if
      try to force their beliefs on me. Otherwise what they do is none
      of my business. If they are breaking the laws of their country then
      they will ahve to deal with that.

      A Moslem man acurately pointed out to me that "fundalmentalist" simply
      means that a person follows a very basic form of their religion. In
      other words, Christian Amish, Orthodox Jews, and Moslems who follow
      Islam as it was followed 500 years ago are all legitimately
      "fundalmentalists." What has happenned is that the news media in the
      United States has brainwashed Americans to believe that Muslims who
      practice an ancient form of Islam (fundamentalists by definition) are
      radicals as well. They have done this by reinforcing the belief that
      Muslims restrict women, therefore they are wrong, therefore the news
      media managed to change the phrase "Muslim fundamentalists" to mean
      something dangerous. Something that need to be controlled. Therefore,
      the United States can justify going around the world forcing everybody
      to be like they are.

      So the new media has managed to brainwash Americans into believing that
      a Muslim society that restricts women (by American standards, of
      course) is synonymous with a Muslim man with a rocket launcher on his
      shoulder. It's a big lie. But it was used to help justify our
      involvement in Afghanistan (we're there to help Afghan women, therefore
      the war is a noble and justified cause).

      If there=2
      0are religions in the world that restrict women then let the
      men and women in those religions do something about it if they choose.
      It really is nobody else's business to interfere. This policy of
      America interfering in other peoples around the world is really an
      extension of Christianity which feels that it has the right to change
      others to what it believes is right. It happened during the Christian
      Crusades, and the United States of America is doing it today.

      Yes, I know Muslims have done this too. I know that Muslims did it in
      Eastern Europe and Northern India. It has been a tendency of both
      Christianity and Islam for a very long time.

      So, onto my next discussion:

      I just did a search for blogs about Eckankar and the #1 hit was a blog
      named "Religion or Revelation."


      Blog named "Religion or Revelation"


      Ever notice the universal reality of how "religious" our world is today?

      We live in a "enlightened society" and notice how highly religious we

      Interesting facts: probably already outdated!

      In our country there are many different religions.

      Buddhism – 1.5 million +

      Mormons – 13 million (worldwide)

      Hindu – 1 million +

      Agnostics – 1.4 million +

      Atheists – 1.3 million +

      Baha'i – 120 thousand +

      Taoist – 50 thousand +

      Scientology – 100 thousand +

      Eckankar – 30 thousand +

      Pagans/Wicca/Druids – conservatively – 1 million +

      So conservatively we have millions of "Religiously" lost souls in

      Why would I say they are "religious" and lost?

      Every religion that is not based on "God's Word" alone is a distortion
      of the one true God's revealed truth.

      The truth is only found in the 66 books of the Old and New Testament
      which reveals God's will and way to heaven that comes to us by grace
      alone through faith alone in the finished work of Jesus Christ alone.

      John 14:6 (ESV)

      6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one
      comes to the Father except through me.

      In truth all other religions according to Scripture are distortions of
      the reality of what Biblical Christianity teaches.


      Notice the last sentence that I quoted. It sounds exactly like what
      Eckankar says, doesn't it? It's an elitist view that says "Only our
      religion is correct." Soon after that people like this start to judge
      and criticise things they know nothing about. And this blog is what we
      often get as a result of that.

      It seems to me that some former Eckists are taking their experience
      with Eckankar20and then applying it to every religion/cult that they see
      out there. I think it is a shortsighted practice. I guess my point
      about the members of Eckankar and all of we former members is that we
      should strive to comment on what we have experience in. For myself, I
      am going to try very hard to critique only what I know about which is
      Eckankar, and to a lesser degree, Christianity.

      Ultimately, I guess I have been struggling with whether I should start
      calling Eckankar a cult. If I did that then I would have to call all of
      the large religions cults as well, and I am not prepared to do that.
      Either all of them are cults or all of them are religions.

      In conclusion, perhaps this is the overall pattern I am seeing:

      Present members of Eckankar:

      They blast small religions/cults because these current members have an
      elitist view that Eckankar is inherently superior. So they blast
      Scientology and Satanists.

      Former members of Eckankar:

      They blast small religions/cults because these former members have so
      much anger at Eckankar, any time they see something else that reminds
      them of Eckankar they blast it too. So they blast Scientology.


      --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, "mishmisha9"
      <mishmisha9@...> wrote:


      > Jonathan, you have made some interesting comments

      > regarding other religions and how eckists
      view them. A

      > big part of the eckankar dogma is to instill in a member's

      > mind that being an eckist is to be an enlightened/chosen

      > one--planting the seed of spiritual superiority. And yet,

      > the way chelas are held back from advancing in a timely

      > manner via initiations, it seems rather funny that chelas

      > can feel superior to other religious groups while they

      > themselves are kept in a very subservient standing within

      > the eckankar circle.


      > I do respect other's rights to their religious beliefs and

      > practices, but admit that I am concerned and bothered by

      > fanatics, fundalmentalists and radicals. In fact, these factions

      > are pretty scary.


      > Yesterday, I met a gentleman--a very interesting and polite

      > fellow who shared a bit about his background, stating that

      > he came to North America in 1972 from an African country.

      > He very easily added too that he was a moslem. Now, I do not

      > care for Islam at all as I believe it is very archaic and being a

      > female . . . well, I'm just glad I never had to follow such

      > teachings. However, I liked this man very much and it does

      > not bother me that he is a moslem at all. He obviously practices

      > the best aspects of it . . .


      > But frankly, I have come to not like re
      ligions at all . . . they

      > manmade for the purpose of controlling and manipulating

      > groups of people. I have never met a religion that didn't instill

      > fear in its followers . . . and some also teach hatred and

      > I do not respect religion, but I do respect and like people, even

      > if I do not share their beliefs.


      > Anyway, just a few comments in response to your interesting

      > posts.


      > Thanks,

      > Mish


      > --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com,
      "jonathanjohns96" <jonathanjohns96@> wrote:
    • Show all 23 messages in this topic