7972Re: Eckankar belongs in The Onion and God
- Nov 9, 2010--- In email@example.com, "prometheus_973" <prometheus_973@...> wrote:
>I don't know about a "new version" of a personal God. I am using it generically to denote the God of my childhood but reconditioned in a sense that the anthropomorphic aspect of "God" is merely metaphoric to accommodate those unfamiliar with gaining spiritual nourishment from the Bible. Therefore, my "new" God is on of love and understanding as opposed to sitting on a heavenly throne waiting for you to fuck up so he can throw you in the fire for eternity. The "evil" mentioned is Hell which I also do not ascribe to. I simply believe it is nescience for those who do not pray, meditate and actively allow God to run their lives. I am a firm believer in faith with works and to spend MORE time on helping others selflessly. This is the essence of Love which is God in it's human incarnate.
> Hello All,
> I found the conversation interesting
> and thought I'd share my views.
> In regard to a "personal" God? Which
> one? Or, is this a new/different one
> or a new version than what's been
> advertised and promoted? Isn't this
> similar to "American Idol" worship?
> Or, are We our own "personal God?"
>There are no large coincidences, just small miracles.
> My beliefs have been formed by
> both objective and subjective criteria.
> Both compliment each other. The
> objective gives me feedback in order
> to have/see or identify the subjective
> experience more clearly and to have
> a "spiritual knowingness," or revelation.
> Sometimes these are rather insignificant
> and other times (less often) they are
> moments where everything is perfect
> and in its rightful place in the Universe.
> It's hard to explain and I'm still uncertain
> as to my role... maybe it's a private
> thing. Each of us has to have our own
> journey, but it's sometimes connected
> to the journey of another to a degree
> that makes a difference or not. Sometimes
> a negative leads to a positive... and
> vice versa, and sometimes a positive
> action equals a positive result but
> nothing is as it seems!
>I read the Bible with a grain of salt but get so much out of it when I hear or read something that just clicks. I sometimes need some help with interpretation but even then, I form my own thoughts about it after all.
> Yes, I do believe in Soul and Spirit
> and that there are nudges and intuition
> coming from Soul. Therefore, there's
> no middleman involved except for
> what I see as me/my "Higher Self."
> Perhaps, one could say that this/my
> Higher Self (Soul) is my "personal God."
> Thus, I AM.... a part of this Divine
> experience/experiment or Whatever.
> Religions are for those who have
> surrendered and given up hope of
> ever achieving Self Mastery, "God"
> Knowledge, and Spiritual Freedom.
> At first religion does offer some
> positives in that it gets people to
> think about the divine and to explore
> their inner selves. It gives people
> spiritual baby food and then, later,
> some meat that has already been
> chewed by others. Religion never
> gives the individual the freedom
> to find and chew this spiritual meat
> on their own because the religious
> leaders fear that the sheep might
> leave the confines of the teachings.
>Yes, there have been many who have given Christianity a bad rap from David Koresh to the Pope but there are most of us who live a quiet and humble sense of surrender and acceptance.
> Religionists are slaves of dogma
> and are the servants of men... conmen!
>Eckankar is a cult. The rules change according to which way the wind blows. It braqs about self realization to the point that we can live as gods among God. We strive to live like God, not become God! Klemp's seminars and Temple in Chanhassen as well as "Sunday worship" are all lame carbon copies to attract those coming off a major western religion such as Christianity. What compells people to join Eckankar is that all they have to do is basically pay for membership and initiation. There is absolutely nothing I've read in the books by the Mahantas that has any value as to how to make yourself a better peopsn for OTHERS! It's all a selfish journey. Actaully, Twith made the most sense to me but Klemp is just a blathering fool and has NO business in the world of teaching about God considering his checkered past and his moronic speeches about his view of the world. He is a narcissist.
> I find it interesting, that in ECKankar,
> Eckists claim to be Soul and then
> they take a subservient position
> under Klemp (their Mahanta/God)
> when all Souls are considered equal.
> Klemp even degrades Eckists (as
> Mohammad did to women) by
> referring to them as animals, of
> various types. Klemp refers to his
> flock (of sheep) as: eagles, chickens,
> and foxes while detractors (other
> Souls) are spoken of as being weeds
> and bugs. Such is Klemp's (the Mahanta's)
> all encompassing "love." Klemp can't
> even follow the example of Jesus
> (supposedly a 2nd initiate and HK's
> boyhood friend). Didn't Jesus say,
> "Love thy enemy" and "If struck, turn
> the other cheek."
> And, why do Eckists have an obsession
> with Animal Angels? Where are the
> human ones... their dead loved ones?
> Where are these "stories," or would
> they compete with Klemp's influence?
> It seems that this Animal Angel ruse
> is another distraction so that Eckists
> won't ask the more important questions.
Good stuff Promethus.
> al_radzik wrote:
> How can you say that a personal god is ridiculous? Nobody but nobody knows the true essence of God. WE are all just bozos on the bus and there is no inside scoop. WE can all get well-read like Campbell and know intimately the tenets of different faiths all over the world but frankly, it's whatever works for YOU and YOU alone. I'm kind of surprised at your statement being that I've always respected your views.
> harrisonferrel wrote:
> As per usual, I agree with you, Leaf. The problem is that people are quick to criticize how crazy eckankar, scientology or every other religion, but they won't look closely enough at their own beliefs. You have to be pretty bold to be objective.
> "tomleafeater" wrote:
> Thank you Harrison!
> Yes! The Taoists don't believe in "god" but in a non-sentient "Way." Likewise, essentially pure Buddhist philosophy doesn't have a "god" per se, but rather speaks of the Void.
> The personal god concept is ridiculous. Just ridiculous.
> harrison ferrel wrote:
> When we start talking about god, we go off on another completely unprovable, subjective, unsubstantiated tangent. The idea of a god is as nuts as eckankar, so it's just an exchange of ideologies. We either have to see that human beings have been behind these cults, religions and belief systems or not. There's no middle ground. People create deities and have done so since the beginning of human time. The belief in god is as absurd as the belief in anything that eckankar says.
> al_radzik wrote:
> David Osborn wrote:
> Hello Al,
> That may have been your experience and perception of things, and there may be a lot of truth in what you say. Perhaps for many, perhaps for the vast majority of us, it may be stroking their sense of entitlement, ego and its delusions of grandeur. But throughout history, there have been genuine, magnificently reallized mystics and men of God who have succeeded in finding the Divine, and in gaining direct personal experience of God. Their path may have not been an easy cakewalk of self entitlement, but through inner spiritual struggle and persistence, they did succeed. To flat out say that it is impossible and nothing more than a big delusion would be too limiting, I feel, on the human Spirit, and on God ITself.
> This is very true but God can only be a personal and subjective experience. You can FEEL God exists but you cannot KNOW" God. Feelings are not facts. You may be a spark of the Divine but the WHOLE God will never be revealed in totality. This is true with EVERY religion. Mysticism bores me. In context with Eckankar, it is secretive and seductive. It has no value. On the other hand, prayer and meditation are valuable tools. PS: Why does Eckankar have SUNDAY WORSHIP? Who do they worship? IT sounds contradictory and why is it on Sunday? Sounds like a backpedal and a ruse to appear like a traditional Christain church to get followers.
> Native ability in spirituality and mystical realization is, I feel, similar to msuical or any other kind of talent. Many may have a bit of it, or even a moderate or modest amount, but only few possess magnificent, sublime gifts. And those, if they are genuine, are not egotistical about it with a sense of self entitlement or self absorption, but truly seek to use their gift to help others along the spiritual path.
> Yes. I feel my own gift of music is not from myself but through me. This is a manifestation of a higher power. Again, not inside knowledge of how God works through my talent. You just know you're tuned in. you can't see the DJ.
> I'm sorry to burst your bubble of cynicism, but from my experience, this is what I perceive to be the reality. Eckankar, especially in its outer, organizational aspect, may have a lot of failings, and it even may be an outright sham, which again fits in with my personal experience. But that is not to say that all spirituality and mystical experience is also a sham. Call me a Pollyana, or even a secret Eckmole, but I assure you, I am none of these
> things. Yet, neither am I a hardened cynic; personal experience has shown me that God and Spirit are real.
> I may not know God but I am closer to knowing Eckankar and it doesn't take too much to realize it is a scam. I won't go into the endless proof that it is a plagiarised and well-crafted organization, but I seriously do not believe for a moment that Paul Twitchell and Harji really care(d) as much about your soul as much as the $30 membership fee in your wallet. Cynicism? It is from well-grounded reason and skepticism that I post.
> One more question. Are you an active Eckist? Why do you sign off with "May the blessings be"? Just curious.
> May the Blessings Be,
> al_radzik wrote:
> I agree...and I love the Onion! In my short stint with Eckankar back in 1985, one of the many books I read was Tiger's Fang. I initially thought it was quite engaging and believed it was a true account of the other "planes". In hindsight, my Bullshit Meter went off and truly questioned WHY i was falling for this stuff. I wanted it MY way and that's not how God works. I wanted God to behave as I WANTED God to behave. I I I I. It was all a big ego trip. Eckankar tells you that you ARE (or can be) closer to God than any other human on Earth. I recall there being a slogan on an ECK book saying we can "Touch the hem of God". That is, to know God. We cannot know God. We are the created....God is the Creator. Eckankar keeps it's members by stroking their selfishness and sense of entitlement.
> harrison ferrel wrote:
> Eckankar is really such a joke that it deserves a featured headline in The Onion.
> Being out of the cult for many years now, I find the beliefs, claims and writings of eckankar to be so silly that it's hard to imagine anybody takes any of it serious. Those of us who questioned this stuff while in the cult then eventually left because we never got satisfying answers, will be the first to admit that it all sounds like a the ravings of a committee of lunatics.
> To have a relative still in the cult never makes me stop scratching my head in wonder.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>