₦airaland Forum

Now let us come to the physical aspect of Yoga philosophy, asanas and pranayamas. Asana (posture) brings steadiness, health and lightness. Asanas are not exercises, they are postures. Unlike many systems of sports and physical training, asanas do not require equipment or a large field. All you need is a clear, clean, airy place and a blanket. The postures have evolved over the centuries and are believed to exercise every nerve, gland and muscle in the body. They can be practiced alone, although it is better to be under a guru. They ensure a good physique, with the body tissue distributed evenly around the body, instead of around the muscles. They reduce fatigue and keep the body free from disease. But most importantly, they train and discipline the mind, the intellect and the Self. There lies the difference between a Yogi and an athlete. The athlete or dancer often puts the body first, and you have a disproportionate number of the mentally unbalanced among them. But the Yogi practices his postures to perfect his mind as much as his body. The Yogi believes that health is an asset to be gained by sheer hard work.

Different asanas are named after plants, insects, animals, human embryonic states, legendary heroes, sages and Hindu gods. While assuming the postures, your body assumes the shapes of countless different animals, birds, embryos and others. You learn therefrom not to despise any living thing. Dualities such as gain and loss, victory and defeat, are supposed to disappear from the consciousness of the Sadhaka with the asanas. He then moves on to Pranayama.

Pranayama (breath control) involves breathing, therefore, it involves life in a very direct way. Pranayamas are not to be attempted except under the supervision of a guru. You need someone who is familiar with your physical limitations. They involve the nostrils, membranes, nasal passages, lungs and the diaphragm. This science of breath is not to be done in a hurry and mproper practice can lead to diseases of the respiratory system and the nervous system. Pranayama has to do with the extension and control of the breath. The control is over the familiar functions of breathing (1) inhalation, (2) exhalation, and (3) retension or holding.

Traditionally, the purpose of pranayama is to harmonise the individual’s breath with the cosmic breath. Breath regulation fosters a calm spirit, a soft temper, and a peaceful heart. It helps to control the senses, keep desire in check, and still the mind and check its constant wondering. That is why during pranayama, the eyes are kept shut. Prayanama helps master the breath, which helps to still the mind.  This helps to control the senses, which prepares the Sadhaka for the next stages of Yoga: emancipation of the mind, concentration, meditation, and, finally, communion.

Yoga is for everyone, irrespective of physical condition – men, women, the young, the old, and the disabled. Yoga is beneficial to pregnant women but strict specifications are to be followed. Aspects of Yoga can be done without a guru. But it is better to study under a guru. The signs of progress in this path are good health, a feeling of lightness, good countenance, a beautiful voice, steadiness, good smell and freedom from wants. When you reach the last stage of Yoga you become a Jivana Mukta (liberated soul). Your state of consciousness transcends what is known. You become the very symbol of humility. There is now no duality between the knower (the Sadhaka) and the known (God) because the two are merged into one.

What about someone who strives but fails in his quest for Yoga? That is, a Sadhaka who has faith but whose mind fails to take him to the end? Lord Krishna says his reward is great, still. No evil can befall a righteous man, so his place is assured in the heaven of the just where he will dwell long years. And when he is reborn it is into the family of the pure hearted and the great. He may even get the most elusive of incarnations for mankind: to be born into the family of enlightened Yogis. Because his soul is not burdened by sin he will regain the study attained in his former life as he strives ever towards perfection and reaches the goal.

Please note that all I discuss above is basic Yoga. There has been a shift over recent decades from doctrine to practice. Thus there are now countless “Yoga classes” in many countries where the ascetic and venerable gurus have been replaced by cheeky and enterprising young turks who retail asanas and pranayamas to the spiritually inclined alongside committed materialists. It is those who follow the traditional Yoga that are reported to perform the supernatural feats sometimes associated with Yogis.

There are two sides of Yoga – the spiritual or devotional and the physical. The physical aspect can be further divided into two: asanas (body postures) and pranayamas (breathing exercises.)The Masters believe that practicing Yoga without living the devotional aspect of it is mere acrobatics and not Yoga at all. Traditionally, therefore, there is no separation between the physical Yoga and the devotional. Yoga is considered as a whole – a system of living. For me, Yoga includes the physical aspect and many of its recommendations for living, but not the beliefs and prayers, or even all its precepts.

The foremost authority on Yoga is the sixth chapter of the Bhagavad Gita. There, in a dialogue with Arjuna, Sri Krishna explains matters. But if anyone can be called the father of Yoga, it is the second century BC scholar Patanjali, “the noblest of sages”. He was the propounder of Yoga philosophy and the author of the Yoga Sutras, the classical work on Yoga which describes Samhadi, the methods by which the state of Yoga or communion is attained. Patanjali is also saluted for his works on grammar and medicine.

Traditionally, the purpose of Yoga is to attain communion with God, usually referred to here as “the universal spirit” or Paramatma. Brahma and Paramatma may be used interchangeably here, but not in all contexts. For atheists, a small minority of aspirants, the purpose is to attain communion with the inner Self. There are eight stages of Yoga. These are: (1) Yama (universal moral commandments), (2) Niyama (self purification by discipline), (3) Asana (posture), (4) Pranayama (breath control), (5) Pratyahara (emancipation of the mind from (i) your senses (ii) your surroundings, (6) dharana (concentration) (7) Dhyana (meditation), (8 ) Samadhi (super consciousness, a state in which the Sadhaka becomes one with object of his meditation – Paramatma. Paramatma is similar to what the Rosicrucians call the “oversoul”, a universal soul of which every soul is a portion or spark.

Note that each of the stages described above has is specific components or practices. For example, the five moral commandments of Yama are non-violence, truth, non-stealing, continence and non-coveting.  The above are universal human values and they are so recognised in Yoga. But in Yoga each of them is further explained in such a manner that the Sadhaka is helped to understand the spirit in addition to the letter. The ability to do this is often influenced by tendency. I think one of the reasons we have so much problems in the world today even though people read “holy” books that teach good precepts is because they miss the spirit behind the commandments.

That is why I will now discuss the three gunas of Ayurveda. Gunas describe your natural mental tendencies, possibly reflective of your spiritual state. The three gunas are: tamas, rajas and sattva. From Antonov’s book and possibly other materials you may have read, you already have a good deal of understanding of the guna classification. Note that the manifestations of the three are found in every human being, but there is always one predominateing over the other two. Now, let’s look at the principle of non-coveting above and see how the gunas will receive it. The commandment says: “You must not covet your neighbour’s wife.” A tamas will read that and say, “well, it says no one should look at my wife’s backside.” Should anyone do he will draw blood. But he will go after other people’s wives. Such a person is already in hell if you consider the distance between him and God. A rajas will read and go, “it says I should not go after another man’s wife lest another man goes after mine.” This is the practical approach of the average human being and your average religionist. What we have here is a focus on the letter of the verse. A sattva will read the same and see both the letter and spirit of it. And so he will not covet another man’s wife and will do that which is in his power to prevent harm from coming to his neighbour’s wife, regardless of what other men in the community do.

Thus, a tamas is unforgiving. A rajas forgives with some difficulty if asked. A sattva is not only forgiving, he is not grieved by an offence to himself, except to others.  A tamas takes anything when no one is looking. A rajas covets the fruits if his labour. A sattva foregoes the fruits of his labour, working for the sake of work and the good of all. By a disciplined study of herself and the objects of focus of her senses, a Sadhaka learns which of her thoughts, words and actions are prompted by tamas and rajas and works hard to weed them out till there remains only a sattvic frame of mind. The gunas are like gravity – you must conquer it to enter space and experience weightlessness. Yoga provides the means to do this.

The mind is difficult to control but Yoga teaches that you can do this by using two techniques: abhyasa (constant practice) and vairagya (freedom from desire). This is key to attaining communion with the Universal Spirit, Brahman. Yoga teaches moderation. Yoga does not discourage gluttony or starving yourself; wakefulness or somnolence; it says Yoga is not for you if you do any of those! A Yogi does not starve himself, yet he eats not a morsel more than is required to nourish his body and render it a fit vehicle for the soul. He derives enjoyment from his food. Thus he eats only that which is tasteful, succulent and sweet-smelling, while shunning that which is bitter, sour or pungent. Yoga does not enjoin celibacy, yet a Yogi should not be a slave to sensual pleasures. Yoga teaches self-reliance and freedom from craving. Thus a Yogi does not accept gifts from anyone, since that is a spirit of poverty. A Sadhaka is taught that as long as feelings of “I” stand in his way, his efforts are futile.

It is said that Yoga destroys all pain and sorrow. I personally believe this is possible to a logical extent since much of what is taught in Yoga revolves around freeing the mind from attachments and much of the pains we go through come from craving. To overcome obstacles and win happiness, Yoga makes four recommendations (1) Maitri (friendliness), (2) Karuna (compassion), (3) Mudita (delight), (4) Upeksa (disregard). Moreover, the health of benefits of Yoga, the most rigorous system of discipline known to mankind, are immeasurable. Modern Ayuverdic medicine, following the Vedic scriptures, groups people, according to their physical make-up, into three: vata, pitta and kapha. These are the three doshas of Ayuverda. Ever wondered why you eat a certain stuff and wound up belching uncontrollably or adding weight or come down with some other side effect, but someone you know eats it and is just fine? When you find out your dosha you may group all the food in the world into three (i) those you should eat – because they are balancing (ii) those you may eat – because they are okay (3) those you should not eat – because they are aggravating. Personally, this is not something I would go about recommending for anyone who does not have concerns bothering on health or allergies.

The study and practice of Yoga is not like university coursework. Patanjali does not specify the time or level of difficulty it should take a Sadhaka to attain Yoga and enter into oneness with the Divine, even though some other ancient materials do give some ideas as to time frame. There are generally recognised to be four classes of Sadhakas: (1) mrdu (feeble), (2) madhyama (average), (3) adhimatra (superior), (4) adhimatratama (the supreme one). Mrdu are those aspirants who lack enthusiasm, eat too much, talk too much, lack moral fibre, criticize their teacher, are unstable, fickle, dirty, fearful, sickly, gossipy, acquisitive, vain, harsh, pugnacious, addicted to sensual pleasures, easily manipulated by women, and inclined to cheat or deceive. The Guru (teacher) will guide such an aspirant in the path of Mantra Yoga only. With that, the seeker may reach enlightenment in 12 years.

The average seeker is one who is wishing to perfect his quest, is of stable mind, neat, even-tempered, gentle and moderate in habits. On recognizing this person, the guru teaches him Loya Yoga. The superior seeker is one who is enthusiastic, self-reliant, forgiving, noble, truthful, courageous, respectful, worshipful of his teacher, and keen on Yoga. The guru will instruct him in Hatha Yoga. The supreme seeker is that Sadhaka who is learned in the scriptures and interested in spiritual matters, ebullient, intelligent, good-looking, studious, sound in mind, resolute, selfless, skillful, generous, keeping young, gentle, worshipful of his guru, and fearless. The master will instruct him in all the forms of Yoga and he can reach enlightenment in three years. But that is according to some ancient texts. The reality is that rarely does anyone reach enlightenment in one lifetime. It takes several incarnations.

A Sadhaka is encouraged to be studious. He is taught that all the scriptures of the world are addressed to all men and women, and not just the adherents of the faiths. Yoga discourages laziness and pride. Pride stands in the way of learning. In a story from Hindu mythology often used to illustrate this point, we are told that Virochana (a demon price) and one of the gods (can’t recall which now, but I think it’s Indra) went to their preceptor, Brahma, for power. But Virochana thought he knew it all, and the result? He left with nothing, while his co-disciple learnt and acquired power.

I am quite familiar with the background of the Grail Message and its author. I have heard things about its unoriginality and have encountered some stuff at other places. I even saw an old thread in NL that focused on that matter. But I am obviously far less familiar than you with Gnosticism and so much of what you said about that was new to me, particularly the aspect about Mani’s writings. But like you observed originality or the lack of it does not on its own confer integrity on a message or erode it. The tendency of adherents of movements and persuasions to stop “seeking”, having “found”, is fairly common. I guess it has something to do with some inner satiation and feelings of “it’s working for me”, something some of us hyperactive lot seem perpetually excommunicated from. Of course, there is a whole lot else – from coercive-persuasive instructional techniques used at temples to feelings of “I spent 25 years searching before I found it, so it must be right”. But, of course, who’s to say I am not the deluded one?

On the hypostasis of Abd-Ru-Shin, I, too, put that squarely within the subset of rumours, while being mindful of the fact that whenever the subject is raised you often get the same answer, couched in the same words. There are several threads where Deep Sight pursues the matter with methods and vehemence evocative of the Spanish Inquisition.

Yes, wicked people are driven by their own minds and the influence of their environments. The habit of ascribing things to demons is a non-starter. There is a favourite TV preacher of mine, Pastor Kingsley Okonkwo, a reasonable man in other matters, who has no doubt that homosexuals are possessed by demons! There is an elderly friend of mine, a man I don’t associate with lies or frivolities who told me he went into a forest a few decades ago and met a woman living all by herself, some kind of priestess. He learnt from her that prior to her initiation a demon killed her husband and kids.

What you said about Jesus and the Jew’s expectations up there reminds me of The Temptations of Jesus as presented in the Essen texts. I found them rather remarkable in view of the fact the temptations must have been a spiritual event since Satan doesn’t walk up to anyone in the physical and initiate a dialogue.

nuclearboy:
[ Next I'll hear is MyJoe is mid twenties.

You are way off!

^^^ Sent: j&joe. I have read your fascinating write-up above and should be able to revert Monday. Now is hectic. Seriously speaking, you are a writer who has chosen not to write!

The bit about Olaadegbu, our resident purveyor of Genesis to Revelation literalism, sure cracked me up. I, too, just marvel at the patent sincerity of it all, and sometimes secretly long for the old days when it was all clear and perfect. God loves you. This is what he wants you to do. Do it and be saved from being slaughtered by God as he will soon do to those who have refused to join us. He caused men to write a book so you must believe everything in it. I took it all in. In fact, I carried it on top of my head. I followed things to their last detail and always erred on the side of caution. And then something happens. It just happens and, as if in a kaleidoscopic motion picture, one begins to see. You don’t really want to see – it can’t be true! – but the pictures remain there. I wrote a personal account of this process down in a 36 composition I have no intention of putting on NL. I can email it if you desire to read it.

The Mystic Christianity’s handling of the subject of Jesus' life and ministry is fascinating on several levels. I had already come across the basics of everything touched in the book in my extensive interactions with the Rosicrusians and have always been deeply skeptical about them. Rosicrucians and similar orders that claim to have descended from the Essenes have a motive to push these ideas. But this book brought several details I had not previously come across, having not actually read Louis’ The Mystical Life of Jesus. I paid particular attention to the sections on the Virgin Birth and Jesus’ youth. I suspect that the Virgin Birth thing grew out of a combination of several things, including the automatic association of sexual intercourse with impurity in the minds of many religious people, and the influx of former pagans into Christianity. If Remus and Romulus were suckled by a sow, why not something similarly miraculous but much more fantastic for Jesus the Christ? And there is the germane point that Paul who taught such stuff as salvation by blood which he apparently brought over from Judaism never mentioned the Virgin Birth since the idea was quite foreign to the Jews who were not expecting the Messiah to come through a virgin birth. The idea made perfect sense to me when I knew nothing of the truth about reincarnation. Once I came to believe in the trueness of the doctrine, a Virgin Birth naturally made no sense whatsoever. Every childbirth is a miracle. If a child is born of a man and a woman who were truly in love, how immaculate can a conception be?

It’s perfectly logical to speak of Christ’s death as a sacrifice. It’s like knowing you are to die on a mission and still going for it because of the greater good – it’s sacrifice, it’s shedding your blood for people sakes, and so on. But to then equal the death to some necessary ritual slaughter, with the blood being the saving or cleansing agent, is another matter.

Whether Christ was another prophet of God or actually came from before God in heaven is something I simply don’t know. Whatever he was, there has to have been something special about him. Maybe I will get the opportunity to confirm these legends in Tibet and India and Egypt about a Young Master who denounced priestcraft, formalism and casteism that Ramacharaka speaks of. And who’s to say I won’t get some revelations one of these days!

You mentioned the Grail Message. Personally I am struck by its handling of certain subjects. Its handling of the subject of disability and suffering, for instance, has far more depth than some other schools of thought, take Antonov’s position on the subject. I have had problems with depression and Antonov would have me believe something is wrong with me. But the Grail Message gives you a broad perspective of such matters. Its denunciations against the “over-cultivation of the intellect”, though, is another matter. Some other schools, and Antonov is of that view, insist that a highly cultivated intellect is helpful in apprehending the spiritual.

About Yoga, I am a sadhaka (an aspirant) and hope to make progress in the coming years. It’s something much misunderstood, with people asking if you can walk on live coals or disappear! It’s simply a system of self-discipline, "a poise of the soul which enables one to look at life in all its aspects evenly" (Desai), a system that adherents of different faiths have found beneficial. I like its emphasis on respect for life, purity of thoughts and actions, and self-control. Like Tiger Woods said of Buddhism, I have personal reasons for buying into it. Vegetarianism is not compulsory but all advanced practitioners usually adopt it. By the way, you know Antonov almost convinced me with the way he put that one – “the corpses of killed animals”  . I have almost entirely given up meat anyway, not due to Yoga but because of having been forced by ENT/GIT-related complications to adopt my Ayurvedic (tridosha) diet. But I like my fish. And I will do only that which I believe is good. I do not say the prayers, the ones about bowing before Patanjali or Siva. I don’t subscribe to any other system of belief. If Yoga were some organized movement with priests and candles I would probably have given it a wide belt.

Devils, demons, possessions, and exorcisms all sound to me like the matter of witches and wizards – you hear of them all the time but never get to meet any. The idea that there are non-material entities who stray from The Way is almost certain. But what do they do? That’s something I don’t know. Are extremely wicked people like Nero, Hitler, Bundy, Shipman or IBB possessed by demons? Do policemen who turn the gun they should deploy to serve and protect on innocent people have demons inside of them? Are there really possessed people who scream when they are taken into a church and if so, what are all the possible explanations? I just wonder.

JeSoul: DS na wa for you oh. I thought you would walk away from this one but I guess your addiction is strong beyond strong.

MyJoe, perhaps DS gets that special treatment because he is special?

Actually both remain respected persons. If you reversed the characters or even substitute Bambi and Thumper for them, I would have made the same observations before ducking from the karate chops.

Like Vesc observed, I see "How Joagbaje Became God" (I crack up whenever I see the title) has become very interesting.

nuclearboy:
I have read a number of posters here (including some on this page and myself) "decide" not to answer DS any longer but to ignore him. NOT ONE has been able to fulfill their such "decisions". Why? I think its primarily because he does two lovely things

[1] slow down a bit (as it were) seeming more ready to listen. Then you return, then he strikes again. He does this over and over and gets the kind of outbursts Mad_Max, Chris and David have given him.
[2] Bait you (cowardice, ineluctable, the penultimate post etc) till you feel obliged to respond. then he strikes again

Good, but this follows from an existing discussion. I am yet to see where you or anyone else butted into a thread JUST TO LET SOMEONE KNOW A DECISION HAS BEEN TAKEN TO IGNORE HIM. That one is unique and is different what the scenario you describe above. I wasn't defending DS. Just pointing out something in good faith. But, cheers all.

JeSoul:
Common now fellas . . . I hate seeing all these wonderful men I respect very much engaged as such. Can the slate be wiped clean between Enigma and Deepsight (and perhaps also MyJoe)? pleaaaaassssssseeee!

I don't normally get into this sort of stuff, but what I typed up there (the mendacity post) was spontaneous. Maybe I shouldn't have typed it, but it's good I did. Some people actually believe their own lies.

Enigma:
MyJoe

I try to keep out of this type of spat with your type. However, I am going to be plain direct: you ARE a LIAR!

Anyway, this is the thread that is the root of your bitterness:
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-490515.0.html

Your bitterness lies in the fact that the shallowness of you and your friend Deep Sight was exposed when having let you guys spout, I made that post i.e. https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-490515.128.html#msg6568739 showing how short you guys were of proving your "intellectual thesis".

Oh, yeah!

JeSoul:
MyJoe no problem. Sorry if I sounded irritated yday. I've been running the same all-day experiment for 2 weeks and the darn thing is not working. Does anyone have any ideas on how to improve an acid-enhanced Protein A ELISA assay?

No probs, JeSoul. Maybe you should just let that stuff be for a day or two and then get back to it.

nuclearboy:


That Mad_Max is the mendacious one! Haba!

How can she join Viaro, Davidylan, Kag, Inesqor, Chrisbenogor, Krayola, Enigma amidst a host of other non-intellectuals all just to bully DeepSight, the poor friendly intellectual? Imagine Deists and Atheists (both ends of the barrel) combining together to attack just the one guy!

All these people sef - can't they simply understand that infinity cannot be grasped and thus DeepSight is necessarily beyond reason and sense?  Maybe its cos one set are limited to what they see and the other to what they believe when ONE is unlimited except to number fractions!

Your views of the man, nuclearboy. You are entitled to them. But consider this:

D [thread]: Christianity is Ridiculous. How Can People Worship The Carpenter?
E: There are some people I don’t bother talking to on this forum.
N: Christianity is not ridiculous. If you don’t understand, why not ask?
D: Well, make me understand. I read the Bible. Did it not say…?
N: No. You are deliberately misquoting things. The Bible actually says…
E: You know, N, there are people I don’t bother interacting with around here.
D: Why do you keep doing this? Making indirect references to me without mentioning my name?
E: Well, I will talk to you if you say something worth responding to. But until then I shall take a backseat.
[20 posts between E and D later, with E imperiously insisting on being replied and hardly replying to anything]
E: This is why I don’t answer you. I will ignore your post henceforth. Everybody has similar feelings towards you. You are not worth responding to.
Here, people, see threads where Christians, atheists, and others react similarly to him.

My concern: Now, many here have someone they will not like very much to debate with and what do they do? They IGNORE them. So if you wish to ignore someone, why not IGNORE them? Why rub what you don’t eat around your mouth? Why get into a debate and bail out with a barrage of excuses? Why use lies to cover up for . . . I will stop here.

Enigma:
I was going to agree with this but then [i]I thought [/i]maybe Kunle meant poor intellectually! 

I think you are mendacious.

Enigma: By the way, like a broken clock that can be correct at least twice a day, Deep Sight can say some useful things. Nevertheless, I am not the first to comment on the shallowness of some of Deep Sight's posts --- indeed even people who apparently like him have made similar comments. There are several examples but I give just two below.

From here https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=371029.msg6174815#msg6174815

and from here https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=369330.msg6339993#msg6339993
Bold added

The bit that I've bolded well encapsulates my view of some of Deep Sight's so-called "challenges" and "posers" --- and why I believe once again that I am better off to ignore them.

I think you are mendacious, indeed.

@JeSoul
I see your viewpoint. Thanks.

I think the issues involved in "personal relationship", "fellowship", their places in the light of the Bible, whether fellowship is mandatory and whether it is to be equated with membership of a particular denomination are nuanced.

**sighs**

@nuclearboy, alatheia, InesQor
I share your view on this matter of submission. I only set out to point out that JeSoul’s initial position, namely that the Bible did not mandate submission to pastors and church leaders, was not an accurate echo of the Bible’s position on the matter and was, therefore, thoroughly misguided. The Bible mandates submission. Unfortunately the verses hardly qualify this submission, but then one should not be a literalist and conclude that the writers of those verses had unqualified loyalty to “MOGs”, even when they derail, in mind; since Paul warned the Galatian Christians not to become slaves of men or let anyone rule their religious lives.

The problem is that the making of fine distinctions is highly subjective and can be way too much trouble. That is why the vast majority of Christians will stick to these verses and submit all the way.

[quote author=Mad_Max link=topic=436863.msg6748942#msg6748942 date=1284425080]MyJoe, I began the Original Teachings of Jesus a couple of hours ago and just finished it. It's a short read. It is, of course, the point of the view of the author on the subject; everything is merely his own opinion. But then that's what all books and theses on religion are; opinion. It's all shifting points of view. Chakra is a Japanese word for a sort of energy store in the human body. I know because I watched a lot of Naruto, the number one at surprising people ninja, lol. And read much on the Japanese, whose ancient culture I find fascinating. The concept of 'wa', harmony, survives till this day. I don't know what the author means when he uses 'chakra' here. He quotes from the gnostic gospels as easily as from the conventional ones. Is he Hindu? He incorporates some Hindu tenets; his description of creation in cycles in all Hinduism.

He says Paul hadn't had time to 'develop' and struggled with his old nature a lot, and should be forgiven for his messier teachings, however contrary they may be. I agree there was struggle. Struggle with our baser motives is human and understandable. It will end only when we die. It would've been great if Paul had simply stuck to that and acknowledged himself a mere mortal, instead of the direct 'channel' through whom 'God' spoke and sent forth 'commands'. All his writing is merely his personal opinions on a variety of subjects. But he wanted them to be taken as something more. I enjoyed the brief history of Christianity, and the author's definitions of Christianity, one being the attitudes of a particular epoch. While there's a lot that isn't new, it's an interesting read. Thank you for the material. [/quote]He’s a biology PhD who has dedicated much of his life to “researching into non-incarnate forms of life”. He is not Hindu. But he has written into many world views – I have his work on Islam, if you are interested. He doesn’t have a movement of his own and I am not aware he ever renounced the Russian Orthodox Church which he grew up in. I believe he employs words to describe whatever he wants to just like most people do – like karma originated in the East and has come into English for descriptive purposes. Guna that he mentions is originally from the Hindu school of Samkhya. “Chakras” (the power centres of the body) occurs in several schools beside the Japanese. (Coincidentally, I have been asking around lately for these Ninja movies, myself.)  We have it in Yoga, where I first came across the word. In fact, it is an important concept in Yoga.

I believe his use of apocryphal books just comes down to what one considers useful. You know the Catholic Church accepts many of them, especially the Hebrew-Aramaic ones. Certainly, he's no Bible infallibility exponent and quite wisely picks the grain from the rest. One can’t be sure of these said links of Jesus to India, Tibet and Persia, of course, but remarkably the canonical gospels are silent on the life of Jesus between the ages of 13 and 29. And many of those words in The Gospel of Saint Issa do ring similar to his words recorded in the canonical gospels. But again so do words in apparently fraudulent gospels like The Gospel of Barnabas.

I see with him on the fact that it is to Paul’s and John’s epistles that we owe this strange Christian doctrine that someone’s sins are washed away with blood, that is, that God sent Jesus to be immolated as a sacrifice to Himself so he can then forgive our sins! But I noticed he sets great store by the Gospel of John like you do – not a view I share, as I find the synoptics more original and more believable.

Yeah, some of Dr Antonov's stuff is quite new. All that stuff about coming down in the form of the Holy Spirit when you attain Divinity was entirely new to me when I first read this book. I find many of his views disagreeable, while I admire many others for the simple way they express what I believe to be the truth. What do you think of all he had to say about exorcism? Do you believe devils and demons possess people? And what do you think of this doctrine of “immaculate conception”. What about his view that it may have been better if certain things religious were not  introduced to the masses, since they can’t handle it?

JeSoul:
^Nice try again MyJoe.

 Look at the verse you quoted - "Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority"

 Submission in this context (and in the context of the entire chapter) is being obedient to the laws of the land. Indeed, doesn't it say submit to "every authority insituted among men"? And while among the body of believers (emphasizing the word body, which immediately indicates as Paul taught, that there should be union and equal honor among members) there is a collective leadership made up of deacons, elders, pastors, apostles etc. the final authority is God alone - not an alpha-male-I-call-all-the-shots-and-have-a-collection-of-christians-I'm-in-authority-over mog.

You seem to be of the view that submission here should be in a democratic manner, that is, with separation of powers and all. More like what you have in the Anglican Church than what obtains in Catholicism. You will recall the first century Christians did submit to the council in Jerusalem. I suppose your disagreement then is not whether there should be submission per se, but the manner this authority to receive submission is exercised - whether autocratically or democratically.

aletheia:
@MyJoe: And why a different version for each verse, I might ask?
Hebrews 13:17 in KJV is actually more explicit than the quoted Message version (a very poor translation in my opinion):

KJV: Hebrews 13:17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

And why does the WYC translate presbuteros as priest when it actually means elder? I fear that's a translation with an agenda.

Brilliant!

I actually omitted to look up Heb 13:17 in the KJV - now, the Bible does admonish Christians to submit to pastors. I know that verse doesn't say "pastor" but the leaders of the church are pastors or priests.

On my use of different translations, you are right to evince a slight discomfort with that practice. I, too, like to stick to the NIV, having first taken out time to do some comparisons and then some background check on its translators. But virtually ALL Christians writers tend to use translations that support whatever it is they are pushing in that instance. I guess I tried it for once.

Many, if not most translations, do have some agenda. Take that one up there about paying double money! But my point was to highlight the amount of regard Christians are required to give to their leaders, that is, pastors and priests. I believe JeSoul's position in not in near perfect sync with the Bible.

Pastor AIO:
Another point that I want to make is that it seems that Joagbaje has become the punching bag for the forum's christians.  When anyone gets cast in such a mold it becomes difficult to appreciate them even when they in fact actually make good points or are right (as rare as such situations may be).

Thank you.

Well, the word you want is used here:
1 Peter 2:13 (NIV)
13Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority,

in respect to authorities, which includes pastors since, as already established, they are the authority in the church, abi?

"How Joagbaje became God".

I have not laughed so much in days!

Interesting comments.

@JeSoul

Please where is the scriptural directive that demands the submission of christians to pastors?

Here:

James 5:14 (WYC)
14 If any of you is sick, lead he in priests of the church, and pray they for him, and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord [anointing with oil in the name of the Lord];

Hebrews 13:17 (MSG)
17Be responsive to your pastoral leaders. Listen to their counsel. They are alert to the condition of your lives and work under the strict supervision of God. Contribute to the joy of their leadership, not its drudgery. Why would you want to make things harder for them?

Acts 20:28 (NIV)
28Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers.[a] Be shepherds of the church of God,[b] which he bought with his own blood.

1 Timothy 5:17 (CEV)
17Church leaders [a] who do their job well deserve to be paid [b] twice as much, especially if they work hard at preaching and teaching.

[quote author=onye_ngbu link=topic=510751.msg6721329#msg6721329 date=1283969203]I cant pen down the ownership of the banks and that is no reason why I must agree that whoever you have in mind own most of them.

Again name those blue chip institutions and hotels and the owners and lets see who is incharge there.

Import and export are not just fine. Our economy depend on them so much and one can rightly argue that that is where the big money is.

Also  bulk of the  money being managed in the so called financial institutions are made from import and export.[/quote]Address your own first two points and see my point.

You do have a point about the importance of import and export to our economy. But you seem to miss the fact that a disproportionate amount of import is done by foreigners in Nigeria - the Labanese and Indians are very active there. Does that mean they control our economy. Well, that's an important section of the economy. But it takes more than that.

And what, sir, do we export from Nigeria that is controlled by the SE? Oil, perhaps? Rubber? Groundnut? Cocoa? Palm oil? Agricultural products? Tin?

So you think the money "being managed" in our "so-called financial institutions" belong to SE importers and exporters? That's new.

[quote author=nuclearboy link=topic=506712.msg6721024#msg6721024 ]I wasn't a teacher yet the final FINAL step was the only one I shirked from![/quote]How much to reveal this thing? 

nuclearboy: The Practice of IFA of neccessity provides you with information concerning the future. Divination is the practice and it always says something! I do not know about you Sir, but I never met anyone who doesn;t make choices based on knowledge e.g.[b] if you know robbers carrying AK47s are on a particular road, you'll likely avoid it YET that could be where God wants you to pass having set up some profit/whatever WITH absolute safety for you. [/b]Aside that, I do agree that its the practise that matters.

I subscribe to that.

[quote author=onye_ngbu link=topic=510751.msg6721163#msg6721163 date=1283967169]I thought so because the igbos are the one doing most of the trading, production and own more financial institutions in the country.

Nigerias economy is very dependent on imported commodities and all the other things I mentioned above and igbo people are in control of them and that was why i believe igbo is in control of our economy.

I might be wrong though.[/quote]I think you might be.

Take a pen a write down the ownership of the 25 recapitalised banks in Nigeria. Then move to Insurance and do same. These are the financial institutes. The person that controls them controls the economy. It was for this reason that many analysts blamed Obasanjo and Soludo for entrenching SW control of the Nigerian economy through the banking consolidation. Those analysts were right.

If you move away from banking to the real sector, the story is not much different. Check the ownership of blue chip institutions and hotels. The media is dominated by the South South. In fact, the South South is the only competitor the SW has in this country.

Import and export, buying and selling are fine but big money is controlled elsewhere. To achieve a balanced control of Nigeria's economy, the North needs to catch up educationally. SE governors need to find ways to encourage long terms investments. No can control the economy without being active in banking, insurance, oil, telecoms, or the media.

[quote author=onye_ngbu link=topic=510751.msg6721041#msg6721041 date=1283965855]Who even cares if an igbo man is the president. I dont know why some people desperately need that. As long as we are in charge of the economy and cash flow, others can entertain themselves with ruler-ship.  If not for anything, for sake of power balance.[/quote]I don't think Igbos are in charge of the Nigerian economy. Why do you think so, sir?

nopuqeater:
@MyJoe; « #19 on: Today at 10:41:55 AM »I doubt means from the onset, since Islam was the reason for the crearon of pakistan, there shoud not have been a non muslim among them.

I probably don't know what "I doubt" means. But to the important matter now: How would you suggest Pakistan deal with this 3% since you say "there should not have been a non muslim among them"?

^^^ rtfl

manmustwac:
@toba & Myjoe
So Pastor Chris can't pull a crowd without the help of michael jackson? So when Pastor Chris started promoting and advertising for the event at the 02 Arena why didn't he himself title the event Pastor Chris Used The Venue That Micheal Could Not Use Don't you think he would've distributed a lot more flyers and soldout 6 nights in a row like Michael had done if he used his name? And made lots more money to buy more expensive jeeps mansions and private jets.

Do you really believe that the authorities in england would allow him to do such a thing? Obviously not. But they would allow him to call the event  NIGHT OF BLISS with Pastor Chris at the O2 Arena. Were You There?

I know its just because am an athiest thats the real reason why your complaining. I bet if it was JeSoul who changed the topic title you wouldn't have said anything. 

I see you miss the point totally. I wasn't on about the propriety of the title - if you ask 10 people about that you may get as many opinions. My point is that it is someone's prerogative to title his thread. A moderator could change it if it breaks any of the stated rules. Anything short of that the moderator should seek the the consent of the thread starter before changing it - that is what is proper.

I brought in the issue of pulling clicks to let you see why the thread starter may have chosen that topic. And that was his prerogative. As an author I can do anything to get a title that would sell my book not what would be liked by "Her Majesty's government".

JeSoul:
MMW, nor vex ehn oga. It's usually tricky changing topic titles as I've noticed in other sections, with approval being about 50%. I also thought to change the topic at first just like you did, but chuckled with anticipation and an evil grin at the joyful "attacks" that would soon follow such an inciteful title.

Bolded were my exact sentiments. Check out the testy responses from Tudor and some others. Changing the title simply took the fun away and turned a controversial thread into an ordinary one.