Judaism, Christianity and Islam have not been witnesses to the truth.

[Guest guest]

Sister Religions — but don't pick the ugly one.

By James Byrne

 

It is sometimes claimed by Muslims that Islam is Christianity's

sister religion, and that Islam, coming later on the scene, updates

and replaces it. It is logical that Christians should become

Muslims, their argument runs. Both are religions of peace, and the

teachings of Jesus are incorporated in the Qur'an. Jesus is a great

man in the Qur'an. He is highly regarded.

 

Well, is this true? Let us look at each religion.

 

 

Christianity

 

Well, to start off with, Jesus himself didn't start a new religion.

He was a teacher. He taught in the language and custom of his

hearers; that is to say, a contemporary Jewish context. At a

personal level his teaching was practical, simple, and, even now,

modern. Examine yourself; suspend judgment; don't put others into

categories; act peacefully — these are examples. With regard to the

community his teaching must have been revolutionary. God is not a

kind of summit-stone on a pyramid of religious Law; he is to be

found within ourselves. Our approach to God is not material, and

therefore should not be applied to the material world. A religious

state is not a possible state of affairs.

 

Jesus seems to sense the danger of abstract nouns, and often tries

to avoid them, turning a question back on the questioner. When he

is asked: `Are you the Son of God?' he replies: `That's what you

say.' He is aware of the danger of assigning a quality by invoking a

name. If you say the word `God' to me, he infers, you are making

an abstraction. The word `Father' is a word we can understand: I

am the Son of Man. This distrust of abstract nouns is very clear.

It seems to be the guiding principle behind his choice of the

parable form. Jesus doesn't like revealing `Truth'. He likes

telling stories which illuminate the living of a life.

 

Jesus was also a mystic. He reveals this side of himself when he

is speaking to a group of people close to him and who know the way

in which he thinks. It is quite clear that he regards all things as

being interconnected. When he considers nature, he speaks of it

almost in terms of a consciousness looking at itself. Everything is

itself, but is also, in some deep way, part of a great

totality. `The Kingdom of Heaven is within you.' It is the same

teaching contained in the Hindu Upanishads. Literality is only one

way of expressing something.

 

The teachings of Jesus were, ironically, turned into a state

religion which, for most of its history, ignored those very

teachings. Indeed, private reading of them was forbidden to the

ordinary layman. The Church became the very thing against which

Jesus had warned: a pyramid of religious doctrine with an invented

Christ as the summit-stone. It behaved with great barbarity.

 

As the western world has become more secular, Christianity has been

able to adapt. Its inner core — the teachings of Jesus, independent

of time and place — is a part of the world wisdom literature. There

is even speculation that the teaching ascribed to `Jesus' is in fact

the teaching of no one man, but a compilation of the words of many.

That doesn't matter. (It was similarly held that one of the great

books of China, the Tao Te Ching, was written by an old sage, Lao

Tzu, at the request of the Gatekeeper, as he left the kingdom. This

is a lovely fable of its origins within an allegory of death. The

book is almost certainly a compilation. That doesn't matter

either.)

 

We are fortunate today, at least in the West. We have the freedom

to read the wisdom of the present and the past wherever we may find

it. We don't need to be shackled to a belief system in order to

satisfy the commands of a jealous god. We don't need to interpret

the world under the yoke of the past. We don't really understand yet

how free we are.

 

Now let us look at the Qur'an, the text of Islam. Surely we find

the same metaphysical depth in this as we find in the Gospels, the

Vedas, the Upanishads, the Tao Te Ching.

 

 

Islam

 

Would that we did. When we look at the Qur'an we are looking at a

text which is, we are told, divine not in inspiration but in every

single literal word. It is as God spoke it, via an angel, into

Muhammad's ear. Its Truth is here and now. Marmaduke Pickthall,

enthralled by its poetry, made an

 

English translation in 1930. He said that the beauty and poetry of

the original could not be translated. Other translators attempted

the same task. Actually, the translations differ only in minor

respects.

 

So Islam was, from the very start, an attempt to found a religion on

the evolving text of the Qur'an. And so it has been since. The

newcomer to the Qur'an, not knowing what to expect, can approach the

text with the following options: a) believing that it is what it

says it is, that is, the direct Word of God: b) suspending disbelief

to allow any evidence of its divinity to emerge: c) believing that

it is what it says it is not; that is, the writing of a man.

 

I was very interested in Islam. I thought to myself, this is a

world apart from materialism and nationalism. Accordingly, I began

to read the Qur'an. I took the second approach; that of suspending

disbelief to let any evidence of a divine authorship appear. When I

had finished I was thoroughly convinced that it was a humanly

written book. What convinced me? Enough has been said on other

pages of its advocacy of violence and its contradiction. No; what

convinced me that it was not of divine origin was that it changes as

the condition of the prophet changes. The divine statement follows

the fortunes of the man to whom it is given, as a cart follows the

horse. This, to me, was the deathblow to any notion of a divine

inspiration, let alone a divine authorship.

 

One begins to read critically once one is sure that it is a human

text. One begins to see the strategy of its construction very

clearly: the past is roped in to confirm the divine authorship.

Prophets (including Jesus) are drawn in to support the Final

Prophet's claim. The pre-muslim biblical past becomes

(retrospectively) muslim. And then there are those mysterious

verses, now expunged but well-documented long before Rushdie's

novel, which allowed an approach to Allah via local gods. This is

regarded as the ultimate anathema in Islam. (Presumably they were

written when Mohammad was in a weak position, their purpose being to

propitiate. When he was stronger, and the local gods extirpated,

these verses could be written out.)

 

The question comes to mind: this is; why does this text wish to

appear to be the divine word? I don't know the answer to that;

perhaps it can be read in the history of Islam.

 

The history of Islam is one of rapid imperial expansion, a so-

called `golden age' in which the wealth of conquered cultures was

digested, and then a slow stagnation which continues to this day.

 

The Qur'an teaches that it is itself a complete guide to life —

religious and secular — under servitude to God; it also teaches the

manner in which this servitude should be conducted. From this has

grown an immense literature which is part commentary and part

jurisprudence; it allows judgments on what is lawful and what is

unlawful, on what is Islamic and what is unIslamic. An outsider

finds this body of religious/legal knowledge rather eerie; it has

the semblance of a complete and integrated structure, but at its

heart it is empty. Paradoxically, in that emptiness within the

vortex of commentary, one can find instances of true piety.

 

We have seen that Christianity, as a religion, is an accretion upon

(and against) the teachings of Jesus. These stand when the religion

fails. Secularization, contrary to superficial expectation,

actually allows the humanity of the teachings of Jesus to be

perceived more clearly. What of Islam?

 

Islam is different: it began as a religion. Religion is its all.

(The very word religion means to bind back, or to bind again.) If

one removed the religion from it, very little would be left. It has

no real metaphysical depth beyond its religious context. History

may be a guide. When the slowly-crumbling Ottoman Empire drew to

its end, Kamal Attaturk abolished the Caliphate and founded a civil

state. What this example means for the future remains to be seen.

 

Conclusion

 

The teachings of Jesus belong not to Christianity alone but to the

world corpus of philosophical literature, free of the need for

belief and common to mankind.

 

Islam is a religion and, keeping truth with itself, would find

itself incapable of being anything other than a religion. It is

founded on the very mind-set of belief. Its name, Islam, means,

literally, subjection: to be thrown under. It describes the ideal

state, which exists between a believer and God. The idea that it is

derived from the word `peace' is untrue. Converts to it seek its

certainty and its way of life. Apostates from it seek freedom from

it. Islam is only distantly related to Christianity. It does not

fulfil or supersede it. That is an untruth put about to win

converts.

 

Finally, we should look at the age in which we are. In the West, we

have remarkable freedom. This is relatively new. Fifty years ago,

in the United States, a man convicted of homosexuality could be

forced to undergo brain surgery. In the 1930's, in Great Britain, a

(working class) woman could be sent to a mental hospital for life

for having an illegitimate child. The power of the Church was

broken in Ireland only recently, and even now women seeking abortion

after rape have to travel abroad. So freedom is a new thing. We

have to learn to live with it. In the absence of an external system

of discipline — which is a major part of any religion — the art of

self-discipline has to be learnt. This may take generations.

Different realities have to be lived, and, where there is no hope of

heaven and no fear of hell, different aspirations have to be sought;

different fears have to be understood.

 

http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/JamesByrne30526.htm

 

 

Dear Violet,

 

James Byrne is an ignorant Christian who does not know that both the

Bible and Qur'an are mystical and compliment each other. Both holy

scriptures have the Sure Signs of the Last Days, which is known as

the Last Judgment in the Bible and the Resurrection (Al-Qiyamah) in

the Qur'an. Both promise the coming of a Divine Personality, the

Comforter of the Bible and the Ruh (Spirit) of the Qur'an who will

explain the parables and purify the religions.

 

i can go on but nothing can solve the intense hatred between

Christians, Muslims and Jews which has reached the point of no

return. The majority of the followers of these three religions will

never have love in their hearts, no matter what they hypocritically

profess in pious pretentiousness. Only the Divine Message will force

the truly faithful to mend their ways and listen to the Adi Shakti

and learn to love all religions and prophets. They will never be

able to love from the preachers at churches, mosques and synagogues

who stoke the fires of hatred and ill-will. James Byrne is one of

the tens of millions of Christians with similar views. The Muslims,

in return, have their own theological demons to hate Jews and

Christians, and vice versa.

 

" Christianity within its own borders has specialized in self-

crucifixion, at first to quite a minor degree during the first 1500

years of its life, when heretics and dissidents and accused witches

and sorcerers were put to death, as Jesus was. Then, with the

breakup of its unity in the 16th century, Christians devised for

each other one Hell more horrendous and tortuous than another,

indulging in a 300-year round of mutual recrimination, accusation,

denigration, and relegation by bell, book, and candle, to the

filthiest categories of human life. No branch of Christianity can be

excused from this, because all Christians have indulged in it. No

body of Christians ever answered the insults of other Christians

with Christ's answer: " Forgive them, Father, for they know not what

they do? " They all developed special vocabularies replete with

violent words such as " heresy, " " heretic, " " extirpation, "

" condemnation " , " excommunication, " " outcasts, " " unclean believers. "

" vice-mongers. " Each one devised its special defenses against the

other: social ostracism, civil war, discrimination, calumny, legal

non-existence. Rome was the Red Lady of the South. Luther was the

Pig of Germany. Protestants were the sons of vipers. Jews were

the " race of the devil. " Muslims were " benighted and error-ridden

barbarians. " No body of Christians ever tried to conquer the world

with humility and patience and love, and no body of believers ever

tried to fan the flames of faith, in the heart of man by being

authentically believers.

 

The Jews, in retaliation for their pain and their sustained exile,

contributed to the sea of hate, distrust and, in some cases,

deformation of truth. They invented multiform expressions of

contempt, condemnation, loathing, and utter rejection of Christians.

They even modified some of their traditional beliefs because the

Christians had borrowed them in their original form and, in their

repugnance from all things Christian, they wanted no resemblance to

subsist between their faith and that of the Christians. They

returned hate with hate. They, also, cannot be excused and

considered totally guiltless. They preached truth and justice, yet

they violated both in order to maintain their religion and their

Jewishness. Christians preached love but practised officially

sanctioned hate, intermingling their loveliest psalms of compassion

for their dying Savior with the expressions of extreme disgust for

the Jews...

 

Muslims preached mercy and compassion, but they practised none or

very little, assigning both Christians and Jews to the lowest rung

in Allah's consideration, and historically meting out to both a

treatment which rivals any cruelties of man in known history. Down

through the ages, this procession of the crucified one has come:

formed, maintained, and augmented by Jews, Christians, and Muslims.

Each one has prayed with its armies to its god that the armies of

the opponents be destroyed. There is no palliating or explaining

away the sin of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

 

The three religions failed in another significant way. None of them

attacked slavery or race prejudice or other flagrant inhumanities of

man to man from the very beginning of their existence. The Arabs of

today sanction slavery as spontaneously as the Popes of the 19th

century sanctioned the creation of castrati choirs for Papal masses,

as readily and blindly as the Protestant ethic of the white American

sanctioned the serfdom and degradation of the Negro race until the

second half of the 20th century. Each religion has practiced the art

of climbing on the bandwagon: only when lay and secular reformers,

sometimes lacking any formal religion whatever, raised such a hue

and cry that men's consciences were stirred, did the religions begin

to turn their huge resources toward reform. The Catholic Church in

Germany and Italy acquiesced in Nazism and Fascism at least in the

earlier stages of the ideologies. Russian Orthodoxy acquiesced in

the despotism and sadism of Czarist times. Greek Orthodoxy

sanctioned the corruption of the Byzantine court and is today

bitterly nationalist in Greece's disputes with Turkey. No Protestant

Church and no Jewish Synagogue ever officially condemned and

attacked the Ku Klux Klan before 1945 in America, though individuals

did. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have practiced the double

standard in this matter ...

 

Thus the three religions have not been witnesses to the truth. All,

it is true, have developed an exalted vocabulary, and a very

impressive manner of announcing their own grandiose claims. All

three have excelled and excel in words, as distinct from actions.

All three have an impressive ritual and have refined psychological

approaches to man. Yet the witness of words, mere words, has never

changed men's minds, nor has mere theological subtlety helped men to

be better men. The witness of the three religions have been faulty,

at times perniciously false and erroneous. The three of them have

witnessed to the uses of hate for the love of a god. And all three

have disposed of the lives and happiness of millions of human beings

without any real feeling for human suffering or any genuine concern

for the concrete realities of life.

 

It is clear, first of all, that today all three religions lack any

authoritative note for man. They have, as yet, each one of them,

sufficient number of adherents to give the impression of continuing

strength, and this glosses over for them and for the outside world

at times their terrible weakness. For each of them, when scrutinized

closely, is blackened with sufficient failures to prevent any

thinking man from believing in them. And, above all, all three

persevere in making a claim which cannot possibly be valid and true:

that they are, each single one, the true religion.

 

Each one of them, however, hides from the ultimate test of its

validity and truth behind a wall of unknowing and expectation. All

three chorus that only the " Last Day, " when the " End " comes,

when " God " decides, will it be clear that the " other two " and all

others besides were false, and it (the claimant) was all along the

true community of the one " God. " " 1

 

As we speak hundreds of millions of their followers loudly snore in

ignorance of the Last Judgment and Resurrection taking place. We now

know that all along none were the true community of the one " God. "

The proof is that even after being given evidence of their holy

scriptures regarding the Divine Message each one of them continues

to hide from the ultimate test of its validity and truth behind a

wall of unknowing and expectation.

 

Thus the three religions have not been witnesses to the truth. All,

it is true, have developed an exalted vocabulary, and a very

impressive manner of announcing their own grandiose claims. All

three have excelled and excel in words, as distinct from actions.

All three have an impressive ritual and have refined psychological

approaches to man. Yet the witness of words, mere words, has never

changed men's minds, nor has mere theological subtlety helped men to

be better men. The witness of the three religions have been faulty,

at times perniciously false and erroneous. Even the proclaimation of

the Last Judgment and Resurrection does not move them because their

religion and prophets, to the exclusion of all others, does not

triumph over the rest. This is the greatest tradegy and hypocrisy of

these three religions and their followers.

 

Jai Shri Mataji,

 

 

jagbir

 

 

1. (Malachi Martin, The Encounter, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1970, 329-

32. )

 

, " Violet " <vtubb@b...>

wrote:

>

> Dear Jagbir,

>

> Here is an article (URL given below) on the subject of

Christianity and Islam. The actual title of the article is:

>

> " Sister Religions — but don't pick the ugly one. "

>

> Could you please comment on this article by James Byrne and from

your knowledge and experience, give some understanding that might

help Mr. Byrnes to see Islam, which means " surrender " .... 'surrender

to God'.... in a better light.

>

> Can i just say here also that we must realize that all

Incarnations and Prophets come from God. The Christians against

Muslims and vice versa scenario must stop, if we are ever to have

Peace On Earth and Goodwill Towards Men. This scenario will not be

accepted in the Golden Age of the Spirit to come.

>

> It really must come from the hearts of Christians and Muslims to

forget about externals and each go within to receive the Baptism of

the Holy Spirit/the Ruh of Allah. Then they will realize and agree

with other Sahaja Yogis (Born of the Spirit persons) that indeed,

all branches come from the same Tree of Life. All these Incarnations

and Prophets have come at different Times, when needed in various

cultures to enlighten humanity according to their ability to receive

the Higher Truths.

>

> Alternatively, it is just like one branch of a tree telling

another branch of that same tree, that it does not belong on that

Tree. Such a concept comes from the Kindergarten Class. At this time

all human beings need to wake up and realize that it is time to

graduate to the Grown-up's Class. In this class human beings change

their concepts because they realize that we all, regardless of

religious/spiritual background, just need to 'become the Spirit', by

having our Second Birth of the Spirit, which is the same as the Ruh

of Allah. Also, regardless of which religious tradition one comes

from, it will be felt as a Cool Breeze of the Holy Spirit/Cool

Breeze of Allah as a Sure Sign that one has been Born into the

Kingdom of God within.

>

> Therefore, it will only be the Spirit of God that can truly unite

us all into one Human Spiritual Family. As Shri Mataji tells.... 'we

are all connected.... and the connecting line is of love.... not of

hatred'. And to get there, i believe we are going to have to shed a

lot of dogma, doctrine, and conditionings.

>

> i await your response, Jagbir.

>

> Violet

>

> (http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/JamesByrne30526.htm)

>

[Guest guest]

Dear All,

 

Thank you Jagbir and Violet for your birthday wishes. I have finally

been able to get caught up on some reading and reply. I will reply to

some of the things I have read only from my prespective.

 

I think I will just say a few words on any web site I visit,

(Christian as I come from Christian background) and just post the Adi

Shakti web site as my reference. The Holy Spirit led me to the site

and after reading, I wanted to learn more from someone as I had

questions. Just reading the experiences that Kash, Arwinder, and

Lalita experienced had a profound effect on my Spirit. I wanted to

understand what they were experiencing and who these dieties they

were speaking to.

 

Once I learned how to receive self realization, I then began to

meditate and desired knowledge so I could understand myself. The 2

books which helped me tremendously are the Bagvahd Gita and The

Aquarian Gospel of Jesus The Christ. The One thing I wanted to know

above all else is myself.

 

I belive now that the only way to describe God is Divine Love. And

the only way to find the Kingdom of God is within myself. I do not

want to get caught up in religion. I try and seek thoughtless

awareness and living in the present. The Bagvahd Gita helps with this

concept as it describes desire and how knowledge must come from a

Pure Heart. I think if I love my neigbor as myself, everything else

will work out. I also believe that I am here, in this body, not by

accident but for a purpose. Jesus set an example as to how I am to

live my life.

 

It really is hard for me to understand how someone can be so

judegmental and even harbor ill feelings toward someone else just

because of religion. Christianity teaches Love, but without the Holy

Spirit, Carnal things of this world become more important than Divine

Love. The cool breeze from the Holy Spirit is the comfortor that

Jesus promised all of us. Shri Mataji came here to give everyone self

realization and did this by teaching me that I am a Spirit, that I am

to forgive myself and everyone else, that I am not guilty, and I am

my own master. Once I became self realized, I was reborn of the

Spirit, (realizing I am a Spirit). I then wanted to become my own

master which I am doing this through knowledge. But none of this is

possible without the Divine Love of the Holy Spirit.

 

Love and my prayer for the New Year is that the Holy Spirit brings

many others to enlightenment as she has for me in 2005

 

Love,

 

Chuck

 

 

 

, " jagbir singh "

<adishakti_org> wrote:

>

>

>

> Sister Religions — but don't pick the ugly one.

> By James Byrne

>

> It is sometimes claimed by Muslims that Islam is Christianity's

> sister religion, and that Islam, coming later on the scene, updates

> and replaces it. It is logical that Christians should become

> Muslims, their argument runs. Both are religions of peace, and the

> teachings of Jesus are incorporated in the Qur'an. Jesus is a

great

> man in the Qur'an. He is highly regarded.

>

> Well, is this true? Let us look at each religion.

>

>

> Christianity

>

> Well, to start off with, Jesus himself didn't start a new

religion.

> He was a teacher. He taught in the language and custom of his

> hearers; that is to say, a contemporary Jewish context. At a

> personal level his teaching was practical, simple, and, even now,

> modern. Examine yourself; suspend judgment; don't put others into

> categories; act peacefully — these are examples. With regard to

the

> community his teaching must have been revolutionary. God is not a

> kind of summit-stone on a pyramid of religious Law; he is to be

> found within ourselves. Our approach to God is not material, and

> therefore should not be applied to the material world. A religious

> state is not a possible state of affairs.

>

> Jesus seems to sense the danger of abstract nouns, and often tries

> to avoid them, turning a question back on the questioner. When he

> is asked: `Are you the Son of God?' he replies: `That's what you

> say.' He is aware of the danger of assigning a quality by invoking

a

> name. If you say the word `God' to me, he infers, you are making

> an abstraction. The word `Father' is a word we can understand: I

> am the Son of Man. This distrust of abstract nouns is very clear.

> It seems to be the guiding principle behind his choice of the

> parable form. Jesus doesn't like revealing `Truth'. He likes

> telling stories which illuminate the living of a life.

>

> Jesus was also a mystic. He reveals this side of himself when he

> is speaking to a group of people close to him and who know the way

> in which he thinks. It is quite clear that he regards all things

as

> being interconnected. When he considers nature, he speaks of it

> almost in terms of a consciousness looking at itself. Everything

is

> itself, but is also, in some deep way, part of a great

> totality. `The Kingdom of Heaven is within you.' It is the same

> teaching contained in the Hindu Upanishads. Literality is only one

> way of expressing something.

>

> The teachings of Jesus were, ironically, turned into a state

> religion which, for most of its history, ignored those very

> teachings. Indeed, private reading of them was forbidden to the

> ordinary layman. The Church became the very thing against which

> Jesus had warned: a pyramid of religious doctrine with an invented

> Christ as the summit-stone. It behaved with great barbarity.

>

> As the western world has become more secular, Christianity has been

> able to adapt. Its inner core — the teachings of Jesus,

independent

> of time and place — is a part of the world wisdom literature.

There

> is even speculation that the teaching ascribed to `Jesus' is in

fact

> the teaching of no one man, but a compilation of the words of

many.

> That doesn't matter. (It was similarly held that one of the great

> books of China, the Tao Te Ching, was written by an old sage, Lao

> Tzu, at the request of the Gatekeeper, as he left the kingdom.

This

> is a lovely fable of its origins within an allegory of death. The

> book is almost certainly a compilation. That doesn't matter

> either.)

>

> We are fortunate today, at least in the West. We have the freedom

> to read the wisdom of the present and the past wherever we may find

> it. We don't need to be shackled to a belief system in order to

> satisfy the commands of a jealous god. We don't need to interpret

> the world under the yoke of the past. We don't really understand

yet

> how free we are.

>

> Now let us look at the Qur'an, the text of Islam. Surely we find

> the same metaphysical depth in this as we find in the Gospels, the

> Vedas, the Upanishads, the Tao Te Ching.

>

>

> Islam

>

> Would that we did. When we look at the Qur'an we are looking at a

> text which is, we are told, divine not in inspiration but in every

> single literal word. It is as God spoke it, via an angel, into

> Muhammad's ear. Its Truth is here and now. Marmaduke Pickthall,

> enthralled by its poetry, made an

>

> English translation in 1930. He said that the beauty and poetry of

> the original could not be translated. Other translators attempted

> the same task. Actually, the translations differ only in minor

> respects.

>

> So Islam was, from the very start, an attempt to found a religion

on

> the evolving text of the Qur'an. And so it has been since. The

> newcomer to the Qur'an, not knowing what to expect, can approach

the

> text with the following options: a) believing that it is what it

> says it is, that is, the direct Word of God: b) suspending

disbelief

> to allow any evidence of its divinity to emerge: c) believing that

> it is what it says it is not; that is, the writing of a man.

>

> I was very interested in Islam. I thought to myself, this is a

> world apart from materialism and nationalism. Accordingly, I began

> to read the Qur'an. I took the second approach; that of suspending

> disbelief to let any evidence of a divine authorship appear. When

I

> had finished I was thoroughly convinced that it was a humanly

> written book. What convinced me? Enough has been said on other

> pages of its advocacy of violence and its contradiction. No; what

> convinced me that it was not of divine origin was that it changes

as

> the condition of the prophet changes. The divine statement follows

> the fortunes of the man to whom it is given, as a cart follows the

> horse. This, to me, was the deathblow to any notion of a divine

> inspiration, let alone a divine authorship.

>

> One begins to read critically once one is sure that it is a human

> text. One begins to see the strategy of its construction very

> clearly: the past is roped in to confirm the divine authorship.

> Prophets (including Jesus) are drawn in to support the Final

> Prophet's claim. The pre-muslim biblical past becomes

> (retrospectively) muslim. And then there are those mysterious

> verses, now expunged but well-documented long before Rushdie's

> novel, which allowed an approach to Allah via local gods. This is

> regarded as the ultimate anathema in Islam. (Presumably they were

> written when Mohammad was in a weak position, their purpose being

to

> propitiate. When he was stronger, and the local gods extirpated,

> these verses could be written out.)

>

> The question comes to mind: this is; why does this text wish to

> appear to be the divine word? I don't know the answer to that;

> perhaps it can be read in the history of Islam.

>

> The history of Islam is one of rapid imperial expansion, a so-

> called `golden age' in which the wealth of conquered cultures was

> digested, and then a slow stagnation which continues to this day.

>

> The Qur'an teaches that it is itself a complete guide to life —

> religious and secular — under servitude to God; it also teaches the

> manner in which this servitude should be conducted. From this has

> grown an immense literature which is part commentary and part

> jurisprudence; it allows judgments on what is lawful and what is

> unlawful, on what is Islamic and what is unIslamic. An outsider

> finds this body of religious/legal knowledge rather eerie; it has

> the semblance of a complete and integrated structure, but at its

> heart it is empty. Paradoxically, in that emptiness within the

> vortex of commentary, one can find instances of true piety.

>

> We have seen that Christianity, as a religion, is an accretion upon

> (and against) the teachings of Jesus. These stand when the

religion

> fails. Secularization, contrary to superficial expectation,

> actually allows the humanity of the teachings of Jesus to be

> perceived more clearly. What of Islam?

>

> Islam is different: it began as a religion. Religion is its all.

> (The very word religion means to bind back, or to bind again.) If

> one removed the religion from it, very little would be left. It

has

> no real metaphysical depth beyond its religious context. History

> may be a guide. When the slowly-crumbling Ottoman Empire drew to

> its end, Kamal Attaturk abolished the Caliphate and founded a civil

> state. What this example means for the future remains to be seen.

>

> Conclusion

>

> The teachings of Jesus belong not to Christianity alone but to the

> world corpus of philosophical literature, free of the need for

> belief and common to mankind.

>

> Islam is a religion and, keeping truth with itself, would find

> itself incapable of being anything other than a religion. It is

> founded on the very mind-set of belief. Its name, Islam, means,

> literally, subjection: to be thrown under. It describes the

ideal

> state, which exists between a believer and God. The idea that it

is

> derived from the word `peace' is untrue. Converts to it seek its

> certainty and its way of life. Apostates from it seek freedom from

> it. Islam is only distantly related to Christianity. It does not

> fulfil or supersede it. That is an untruth put about to win

> converts.

>

> Finally, we should look at the age in which we are. In the West,

we

> have remarkable freedom. This is relatively new. Fifty years ago,

> in the United States, a man convicted of homosexuality could be

> forced to undergo brain surgery. In the 1930's, in Great Britain,

a

> (working class) woman could be sent to a mental hospital for life

> for having an illegitimate child. The power of the Church was

> broken in Ireland only recently, and even now women seeking

abortion

> after rape have to travel abroad. So freedom is a new thing. We

> have to learn to live with it. In the absence of an external

system

> of discipline — which is a major part of any religion — the art of

> self-discipline has to be learnt. This may take generations.

> Different realities have to be lived, and, where there is no hope

of

> heaven and no fear of hell, different aspirations have to be

sought;

> different fears have to be understood.

>

> http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/JamesByrne30526.htm

>

>

> Dear Violet,

>

> James Byrne is an ignorant Christian who does not know that both

the

> Bible and Qur'an are mystical and compliment each other. Both holy

> scriptures have the Sure Signs of the Last Days, which is known as

> the Last Judgment in the Bible and the Resurrection (Al-Qiyamah) in

> the Qur'an. Both promise the coming of a Divine Personality, the

> Comforter of the Bible and the Ruh (Spirit) of the Qur'an who will

> explain the parables and purify the religions.

>

> i can go on but nothing can solve the intense hatred between

> Christians, Muslims and Jews which has reached the point of no

> return. The majority of the followers of these three religions will

> never have love in their hearts, no matter what they hypocritically

> profess in pious pretentiousness. Only the Divine Message will

force

> the truly faithful to mend their ways and listen to the Adi Shakti

> and learn to love all religions and prophets. They will never be

> able to love from the preachers at churches, mosques and synagogues

> who stoke the fires of hatred and ill-will. James Byrne is one of

> the tens of millions of Christians with similar views. The Muslims,

> in return, have their own theological demons to hate Jews and

> Christians, and vice versa.

>

> " Christianity within its own borders has specialized in self-

> crucifixion, at first to quite a minor degree during the first 1500

> years of its life, when heretics and dissidents and accused witches

> and sorcerers were put to death, as Jesus was. Then, with the

> breakup of its unity in the 16th century, Christians devised for

> each other one Hell more horrendous and tortuous than another,

> indulging in a 300-year round of mutual recrimination, accusation,

> denigration, and relegation by bell, book, and candle, to the

> filthiest categories of human life. No branch of Christianity can

be

> excused from this, because all Christians have indulged in it. No

> body of Christians ever answered the insults of other Christians

> with Christ's answer: " Forgive them, Father, for they know not what

> they do? " They all developed special vocabularies replete with

> violent words such as " heresy, " " heretic, " " extirpation, "

> " condemnation " , " excommunication, " " outcasts, " " unclean believers. "

> " vice-mongers. " Each one devised its special defenses against the

> other: social ostracism, civil war, discrimination, calumny, legal

> non-existence. Rome was the Red Lady of the South. Luther was the

> Pig of Germany. Protestants were the sons of vipers. Jews were

> the " race of the devil. " Muslims were " benighted and error-ridden

> barbarians. " No body of Christians ever tried to conquer the world

> with humility and patience and love, and no body of believers ever

> tried to fan the flames of faith, in the heart of man by being

> authentically believers.

>

> The Jews, in retaliation for their pain and their sustained exile,

> contributed to the sea of hate, distrust and, in some cases,

> deformation of truth. They invented multiform expressions of

> contempt, condemnation, loathing, and utter rejection of

Christians.

> They even modified some of their traditional beliefs because the

> Christians had borrowed them in their original form and, in their

> repugnance from all things Christian, they wanted no resemblance to

> subsist between their faith and that of the Christians. They

> returned hate with hate. They, also, cannot be excused and

> considered totally guiltless. They preached truth and justice, yet

> they violated both in order to maintain their religion and their

> Jewishness. Christians preached love but practised officially

> sanctioned hate, intermingling their loveliest psalms of compassion

> for their dying Savior with the expressions of extreme disgust for

> the Jews...

>

> Muslims preached mercy and compassion, but they practised none or

> very little, assigning both Christians and Jews to the lowest rung

> in Allah's consideration, and historically meting out to both a

> treatment which rivals any cruelties of man in known history. Down

> through the ages, this procession of the crucified one has come:

> formed, maintained, and augmented by Jews, Christians, and Muslims.

> Each one has prayed with its armies to its god that the armies of

> the opponents be destroyed. There is no palliating or explaining

> away the sin of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

>

> The three religions failed in another significant way. None of them

> attacked slavery or race prejudice or other flagrant inhumanities

of

> man to man from the very beginning of their existence. The Arabs of

> today sanction slavery as spontaneously as the Popes of the 19th

> century sanctioned the creation of castrati choirs for Papal

masses,

> as readily and blindly as the Protestant ethic of the white American

> sanctioned the serfdom and degradation of the Negro race until the

> second half of the 20th century. Each religion has practiced the

art

> of climbing on the bandwagon: only when lay and secular reformers,

> sometimes lacking any formal religion whatever, raised such a hue

> and cry that men's consciences were stirred, did the religions

begin

> to turn their huge resources toward reform. The Catholic Church in

> Germany and Italy acquiesced in Nazism and Fascism at least in the

> earlier stages of the ideologies. Russian Orthodoxy acquiesced in

> the despotism and sadism of Czarist times. Greek Orthodoxy

> sanctioned the corruption of the Byzantine court and is today

> bitterly nationalist in Greece's disputes with Turkey. No

Protestant

> Church and no Jewish Synagogue ever officially condemned and

> attacked the Ku Klux Klan before 1945 in America, though

individuals

> did. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have practiced the double

> standard in this matter ...

>

> Thus the three religions have not been witnesses to the truth. All,

> it is true, have developed an exalted vocabulary, and a very

> impressive manner of announcing their own grandiose claims. All

> three have excelled and excel in words, as distinct from actions.

> All three have an impressive ritual and have refined psychological

> approaches to man. Yet the witness of words, mere words, has never

> changed men's minds, nor has mere theological subtlety helped men

to

> be better men. The witness of the three religions have been faulty,

> at times perniciously false and erroneous. The three of them have

> witnessed to the uses of hate for the love of a god. And all three

> have disposed of the lives and happiness of millions of human

beings

> without any real feeling for human suffering or any genuine concern

> for the concrete realities of life.

>

> It is clear, first of all, that today all three religions lack any

> authoritative note for man. They have, as yet, each one of them,

> sufficient number of adherents to give the impression of continuing

> strength, and this glosses over for them and for the outside world

> at times their terrible weakness. For each of them, when

scrutinized

> closely, is blackened with sufficient failures to prevent any

> thinking man from believing in them. And, above all, all three

> persevere in making a claim which cannot possibly be valid and

true:

> that they are, each single one, the true religion.

>

> Each one of them, however, hides from the ultimate test of its

> validity and truth behind a wall of unknowing and expectation. All

> three chorus that only the " Last Day, " when the " End " comes,

> when " God " decides, will it be clear that the " other two " and all

> others besides were false, and it (the claimant) was all along the

> true community of the one " God. " " 1

>

> As we speak hundreds of millions of their followers loudly snore in

> ignorance of the Last Judgment and Resurrection taking place. We

now

> know that all along none were the true community of the one " God. "

> The proof is that even after being given evidence of their holy

> scriptures regarding the Divine Message each one of them continues

> to hide from the ultimate test of its validity and truth behind a

> wall of unknowing and expectation.

>

> Thus the three religions have not been witnesses to the truth. All,

> it is true, have developed an exalted vocabulary, and a very

> impressive manner of announcing their own grandiose claims. All

> three have excelled and excel in words, as distinct from actions.

> All three have an impressive ritual and have refined psychological

> approaches to man. Yet the witness of words, mere words, has never

> changed men's minds, nor has mere theological subtlety helped men

to

> be better men. The witness of the three religions have been faulty,

> at times perniciously false and erroneous. Even the proclaimation

of

> the Last Judgment and Resurrection does not move them because their

> religion and prophets, to the exclusion of all others, does not

> triumph over the rest. This is the greatest tradegy and hypocrisy

of

> these three religions and their followers.

>

> Jai Shri Mataji,

>

>

> jagbir

>

>

> 1. (Malachi Martin, The Encounter, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1970,

329-

> 32. )

>

> , " Violet " <vtubb@b...>

> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Jagbir,

> >

> > Here is an article (URL given below) on the subject of

> Christianity and Islam. The actual title of the article is:

> >

> > " Sister Religions — but don't pick the ugly one. "

> >

> > Could you please comment on this article by James Byrne and from

> your knowledge and experience, give some understanding that might

> help Mr. Byrnes to see Islam, which

means " surrender " .... 'surrender

> to God'.... in a better light.

> >

> > Can i just say here also that we must realize that all

> Incarnations and Prophets come from God. The Christians against

> Muslims and vice versa scenario must stop, if we are ever to have

> Peace On Earth and Goodwill Towards Men. This scenario will not be

> accepted in the Golden Age of the Spirit to come.

> >

> > It really must come from the hearts of Christians and Muslims to

> forget about externals and each go within to receive the Baptism of

> the Holy Spirit/the Ruh of Allah. Then they will realize and agree

> with other Sahaja Yogis (Born of the Spirit persons) that indeed,

> all branches come from the same Tree of Life. All these

Incarnations

> and Prophets have come at different Times, when needed in various

> cultures to enlighten humanity according to their ability to

receive

> the Higher Truths.

> >

> > Alternatively, it is just like one branch of a tree telling

> another branch of that same tree, that it does not belong on that

> Tree. Such a concept comes from the Kindergarten Class. At this

time

> all human beings need to wake up and realize that it is time to

> graduate to the Grown-up's Class. In this class human beings change

> their concepts because they realize that we all, regardless of

> religious/spiritual background, just need to 'become the Spirit',

by

> having our Second Birth of the Spirit, which is the same as the Ruh

> of Allah. Also, regardless of which religious tradition one comes

> from, it will be felt as a Cool Breeze of the Holy Spirit/Cool

> Breeze of Allah as a Sure Sign that one has been Born into the

> Kingdom of God within.

> >

> > Therefore, it will only be the Spirit of God that can truly unite

> us all into one Human Spiritual Family. As Shri Mataji

tells.... 'we

> are all connected.... and the connecting line is of love.... not of

> hatred'. And to get there, i believe we are going to have to shed a

> lot of dogma, doctrine, and conditionings.

> >

> > i await your response, Jagbir.

> >

> > Violet

> >

> > (http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/JamesByrne30526.htm)

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Chuck,

 

Thank you for your beautiful words. It is great that you have had so much help

from the Kingdom of God site and from these forums.

 

You were able to read and understand, receive your self-realization, and are now

having the help of the Holy Spirit in your life. Not only that.... but you are

also helping others now too. i just want to say that the rate of your spiritual

growth has been amazing!

 

What you have told us gives gives all Sahaja Yogis every reason to continue this

Work, as there is no medium that can reach a person in quite the same way as the

Internet does.

 

One of the things that i have heard Shri Mataji say .... which i find profoundly

interesting.... is that the Main Reason that we have the Internet at this Time

of the Last Judgment and Resurrection.... is so that all human beings will get

to hear about the Divine Message that the Comforter/Holy Spirit brings.

 

All the best for 2006 yet again,

 

Love from Violet

 

 

, " Chuck "

<chuckhennigan@s...> wrote:

>

> Dear All,

>

> Thank you Jagbir and Violet for your birthday wishes. I have

finally

> been able to get caught up on some reading and reply. I will reply

to

> some of the things I have read only from my prespective.

>

> I think I will just say a few words on any web site I visit,

> (Christian as I come from Christian background) and just post the

Adi

> Shakti web site as my reference. The Holy Spirit led me to the

site

> and after reading, I wanted to learn more from someone as I had

> questions. Just reading the experiences that Kash, Arwinder, and

> Lalita experienced had a profound effect on my Spirit. I wanted to

> understand what they were experiencing and who these dieties they

> were speaking to.

>

> Once I learned how to receive self realization, I then began to

> meditate and desired knowledge so I could understand myself. The 2

> books which helped me tremendously are the Bagvahd Gita and The

> Aquarian Gospel of Jesus The Christ. The One thing I wanted to

know

> above all else is myself.

>

> I belive now that the only way to describe God is Divine Love. And

> the only way to find the Kingdom of God is within myself. I do not

> want to get caught up in religion. I try and seek thoughtless

> awareness and living in the present. The Bagvahd Gita helps with

this

> concept as it describes desire and how knowledge must come from a

> Pure Heart. I think if I love my neigbor as myself, everything

else

> will work out. I also believe that I am here, in this body, not by

> accident but for a purpose. Jesus set an example as to how I am to

> live my life.

>

> It really is hard for me to understand how someone can be so

> judegmental and even harbor ill feelings toward someone else just

> because of religion. Christianity teaches Love, but without the

Holy

> Spirit, Carnal things of this world become more important than

Divine

> Love. The cool breeze from the Holy Spirit is the comfortor that

> Jesus promised all of us. Shri Mataji came here to give everyone

self

> realization and did this by teaching me that I am a Spirit, that I

am

> to forgive myself and everyone else, that I am not guilty, and I

am

> my own master. Once I became self realized, I was reborn of the

> Spirit, (realizing I am a Spirit). I then wanted to become my own

> master which I am doing this through knowledge. But none of this

is

> possible without the Divine Love of the Holy Spirit.

>

> Love and my prayer for the New Year is that the Holy Spirit brings

> many others to enlightenment as she has for me in 2005

>

> Love,

>

> Chuck

>

>

>

> , " jagbir singh "

> <adishakti_org> wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> > Sister Religions — but don't pick the ugly one.

> > By James Byrne

> >

> > It is sometimes claimed by Muslims that Islam is Christianity's

> > sister religion, and that Islam, coming later on the scene,

updates

> > and replaces it. It is logical that Christians should become

> > Muslims, their argument runs. Both are religions of peace, and

the

> > teachings of Jesus are incorporated in the Qur'an. Jesus is a

> great

> > man in the Qur'an. He is highly regarded.

> >

> > Well, is this true? Let us look at each religion.

> >

> >

> > Christianity

> >

> > Well, to start off with, Jesus himself didn't start a new

> religion.

> > He was a teacher. He taught in the language and custom of his

> > hearers; that is to say, a contemporary Jewish context. At a

> > personal level his teaching was practical, simple, and, even

now,

> > modern. Examine yourself; suspend judgment; don't put others

into

> > categories; act peacefully — these are examples. With regard to

> the

> > community his teaching must have been revolutionary. God is not

a

> > kind of summit-stone on a pyramid of religious Law; he is to be

> > found within ourselves. Our approach to God is not material,

and

> > therefore should not be applied to the material world. A

religious

> > state is not a possible state of affairs.

> >

> > Jesus seems to sense the danger of abstract nouns, and often

tries

> > to avoid them, turning a question back on the questioner. When

he

> > is asked: `Are you the Son of God?' he replies: `That's what you

> > say.' He is aware of the danger of assigning a quality by

invoking

> a

> > name. If you say the word `God' to me, he infers, you are

making

> > an abstraction. The word `Father' is a word we can understand:

I

> > am the Son of Man. This distrust of abstract nouns is very

clear.

> > It seems to be the guiding principle behind his choice of the

> > parable form. Jesus doesn't like revealing `Truth'. He likes

> > telling stories which illuminate the living of a life.

> >

> > Jesus was also a mystic. He reveals this side of himself when

he

> > is speaking to a group of people close to him and who know the

way

> > in which he thinks. It is quite clear that he regards all

things

> as

> > being interconnected. When he considers nature, he speaks of it

> > almost in terms of a consciousness looking at itself.

Everything

> is

> > itself, but is also, in some deep way, part of a great

> > totality. `The Kingdom of Heaven is within you.' It is the same

> > teaching contained in the Hindu Upanishads. Literality is only

one

> > way of expressing something.

> >

> > The teachings of Jesus were, ironically, turned into a state

> > religion which, for most of its history, ignored those very

> > teachings. Indeed, private reading of them was forbidden to the

> > ordinary layman. The Church became the very thing against which

> > Jesus had warned: a pyramid of religious doctrine with an

invented

> > Christ as the summit-stone. It behaved with great barbarity.

> >

> > As the western world has become more secular, Christianity has

been

> > able to adapt. Its inner core — the teachings of Jesus,

> independent

> > of time and place — is a part of the world wisdom literature.

> There

> > is even speculation that the teaching ascribed to `Jesus' is in

> fact

> > the teaching of no one man, but a compilation of the words of

> many.

> > That doesn't matter. (It was similarly held that one of the

great

> > books of China, the Tao Te Ching, was written by an old sage,

Lao

> > Tzu, at the request of the Gatekeeper, as he left the kingdom.

> This

> > is a lovely fable of its origins within an allegory of death.

The

> > book is almost certainly a compilation. That doesn't matter

> > either.)

> >

> > We are fortunate today, at least in the West. We have the

freedom

> > to read the wisdom of the present and the past wherever we may

find

> > it. We don't need to be shackled to a belief system in order to

> > satisfy the commands of a jealous god. We don't need to

interpret

> > the world under the yoke of the past. We don't really understand

> yet

> > how free we are.

> >

> > Now let us look at the Qur'an, the text of Islam. Surely we

find

> > the same metaphysical depth in this as we find in the Gospels,

the

> > Vedas, the Upanishads, the Tao Te Ching.

> >

> >

> > Islam

> >

> > Would that we did. When we look at the Qur'an we are looking at

a

> > text which is, we are told, divine not in inspiration but in

every

> > single literal word. It is as God spoke it, via an angel, into

> > Muhammad's ear. Its Truth is here and now. Marmaduke

Pickthall,

> > enthralled by its poetry, made an

> >

> > English translation in 1930. He said that the beauty and poetry

of

> > the original could not be translated. Other translators

attempted

> > the same task. Actually, the translations differ only in minor

> > respects.

> >

> > So Islam was, from the very start, an attempt to found a

religion

> on

> > the evolving text of the Qur'an. And so it has been since. The

> > newcomer to the Qur'an, not knowing what to expect, can approach

> the

> > text with the following options: a) believing that it is what it

> > says it is, that is, the direct Word of God: b) suspending

> disbelief

> > to allow any evidence of its divinity to emerge: c) believing

that

> > it is what it says it is not; that is, the writing of a man.

> >

> > I was very interested in Islam. I thought to myself, this is a

> > world apart from materialism and nationalism. Accordingly, I

began

> > to read the Qur'an. I took the second approach; that of

suspending

> > disbelief to let any evidence of a divine authorship appear.

When

> I

> > had finished I was thoroughly convinced that it was a humanly

> > written book. What convinced me? Enough has been said on other

> > pages of its advocacy of violence and its contradiction. No;

what

> > convinced me that it was not of divine origin was that it

changes

> as

> > the condition of the prophet changes. The divine statement

follows

> > the fortunes of the man to whom it is given, as a cart follows

the

> > horse. This, to me, was the deathblow to any notion of a divine

> > inspiration, let alone a divine authorship.

> >

> > One begins to read critically once one is sure that it is a

human

> > text. One begins to see the strategy of its construction very

> > clearly: the past is roped in to confirm the divine authorship.

> > Prophets (including Jesus) are drawn in to support the Final

> > Prophet's claim. The pre-muslim biblical past becomes

> > (retrospectively) muslim. And then there are those mysterious

> > verses, now expunged but well-documented long before Rushdie's

> > novel, which allowed an approach to Allah via local gods. This

is

> > regarded as the ultimate anathema in Islam. (Presumably they

were

> > written when Mohammad was in a weak position, their purpose

being

> to

> > propitiate. When he was stronger, and the local gods

extirpated,

> > these verses could be written out.)

> >

> > The question comes to mind: this is; why does this text wish to

> > appear to be the divine word? I don't know the answer to that;

> > perhaps it can be read in the history of Islam.

> >

> > The history of Islam is one of rapid imperial expansion, a so-

> > called `golden age' in which the wealth of conquered cultures

was

> > digested, and then a slow stagnation which continues to this

day.

> >

> > The Qur'an teaches that it is itself a complete guide to life —

> > religious and secular — under servitude to God; it also teaches

the

> > manner in which this servitude should be conducted. From this

has

> > grown an immense literature which is part commentary and part

> > jurisprudence; it allows judgments on what is lawful and what is

> > unlawful, on what is Islamic and what is unIslamic. An outsider

> > finds this body of religious/legal knowledge rather eerie; it

has

> > the semblance of a complete and integrated structure, but at its

> > heart it is empty. Paradoxically, in that emptiness within the

> > vortex of commentary, one can find instances of true piety.

> >

> > We have seen that Christianity, as a religion, is an accretion

upon

> > (and against) the teachings of Jesus. These stand when the

> religion

> > fails. Secularization, contrary to superficial expectation,

> > actually allows the humanity of the teachings of Jesus to be

> > perceived more clearly. What of Islam?

> >

> > Islam is different: it began as a religion. Religion is its

all.

> > (The very word religion means to bind back, or to bind again.)

If

> > one removed the religion from it, very little would be left. It

> has

> > no real metaphysical depth beyond its religious context.

History

> > may be a guide. When the slowly-crumbling Ottoman Empire drew

to

> > its end, Kamal Attaturk abolished the Caliphate and founded a

civil

> > state. What this example means for the future remains to be

seen.

> >

> > Conclusion

> >

> > The teachings of Jesus belong not to Christianity alone but to

the

> > world corpus of philosophical literature, free of the need for

> > belief and common to mankind.

> >

> > Islam is a religion and, keeping truth with itself, would find

> > itself incapable of being anything other than a religion. It is

> > founded on the very mind-set of belief. Its name, Islam, means,

> > literally, subjection: to be thrown under. It describes the

> ideal

> > state, which exists between a believer and God. The idea that

it

> is

> > derived from the word `peace' is untrue. Converts to it seek its

> > certainty and its way of life. Apostates from it seek freedom

from

> > it. Islam is only distantly related to Christianity. It does

not

> > fulfil or supersede it. That is an untruth put about to win

> > converts.

> >

> > Finally, we should look at the age in which we are. In the

West,

> we

> > have remarkable freedom. This is relatively new. Fifty years

ago,

> > in the United States, a man convicted of homosexuality could be

> > forced to undergo brain surgery. In the 1930's, in Great

Britain,

> a

> > (working class) woman could be sent to a mental hospital for

life

> > for having an illegitimate child. The power of the Church was

> > broken in Ireland only recently, and even now women seeking

> abortion

> > after rape have to travel abroad. So freedom is a new thing.

We

> > have to learn to live with it. In the absence of an external

> system

> > of discipline — which is a major part of any religion — the art

of

> > self-discipline has to be learnt. This may take generations.

> > Different realities have to be lived, and, where there is no

hope

> of

> > heaven and no fear of hell, different aspirations have to be

> sought;

> > different fears have to be understood.

> >

> > http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/JamesByrne30526.htm

> >

> >

> > Dear Violet,

> >

> > James Byrne is an ignorant Christian who does not know that both

> the

> > Bible and Qur'an are mystical and compliment each other. Both

holy

> > scriptures have the Sure Signs of the Last Days, which is known

as

> > the Last Judgment in the Bible and the Resurrection (Al-Qiyamah)

in

> > the Qur'an. Both promise the coming of a Divine Personality, the

> > Comforter of the Bible and the Ruh (Spirit) of the Qur'an who

will

> > explain the parables and purify the religions.

> >

> > i can go on but nothing can solve the intense hatred between

> > Christians, Muslims and Jews which has reached the point of no

> > return. The majority of the followers of these three religions

will

> > never have love in their hearts, no matter what they

hypocritically

> > profess in pious pretentiousness. Only the Divine Message will

> force

> > the truly faithful to mend their ways and listen to the Adi

Shakti

> > and learn to love all religions and prophets. They will never be

> > able to love from the preachers at churches, mosques and

synagogues

> > who stoke the fires of hatred and ill-will. James Byrne is one

of

> > the tens of millions of Christians with similar views. The

Muslims,

> > in return, have their own theological demons to hate Jews and

> > Christians, and vice versa.

> >

> > " Christianity within its own borders has specialized in self-

> > crucifixion, at first to quite a minor degree during the first

1500

> > years of its life, when heretics and dissidents and accused

witches

> > and sorcerers were put to death, as Jesus was. Then, with the

> > breakup of its unity in the 16th century, Christians devised for

> > each other one Hell more horrendous and tortuous than another,

> > indulging in a 300-year round of mutual recrimination,

accusation,

> > denigration, and relegation by bell, book, and candle, to the

> > filthiest categories of human life. No branch of Christianity

can

> be

> > excused from this, because all Christians have indulged in it.

No

> > body of Christians ever answered the insults of other Christians

> > with Christ's answer: " Forgive them, Father, for they know not

what

> > they do? " They all developed special vocabularies replete with

> > violent words such as " heresy, " " heretic, " " extirpation, "

> > " condemnation " , " excommunication, " " outcasts, " " unclean

believers. "

> > " vice-mongers. " Each one devised its special defenses against

the

> > other: social ostracism, civil war, discrimination, calumny,

legal

> > non-existence. Rome was the Red Lady of the South. Luther was

the

> > Pig of Germany. Protestants were the sons of vipers. Jews were

> > the " race of the devil. " Muslims were " benighted and error-

ridden

> > barbarians. " No body of Christians ever tried to conquer the

world

> > with humility and patience and love, and no body of believers

ever

> > tried to fan the flames of faith, in the heart of man by being

> > authentically believers.

> >

> > The Jews, in retaliation for their pain and their sustained

exile,

> > contributed to the sea of hate, distrust and, in some cases,

> > deformation of truth. They invented multiform expressions of

> > contempt, condemnation, loathing, and utter rejection of

> Christians.

> > They even modified some of their traditional beliefs because the

> > Christians had borrowed them in their original form and, in

their

> > repugnance from all things Christian, they wanted no resemblance

to

> > subsist between their faith and that of the Christians. They

> > returned hate with hate. They, also, cannot be excused and

> > considered totally guiltless. They preached truth and justice,

yet

> > they violated both in order to maintain their religion and their

> > Jewishness. Christians preached love but practised officially

> > sanctioned hate, intermingling their loveliest psalms of

compassion

> > for their dying Savior with the expressions of extreme disgust

for

> > the Jews...

> >

> > Muslims preached mercy and compassion, but they practised none

or

> > very little, assigning both Christians and Jews to the lowest

rung

> > in Allah's consideration, and historically meting out to both a

> > treatment which rivals any cruelties of man in known history.

Down

> > through the ages, this procession of the crucified one has come:

> > formed, maintained, and augmented by Jews, Christians, and

Muslims.

> > Each one has prayed with its armies to its god that the armies

of

> > the opponents be destroyed. There is no palliating or explaining

> > away the sin of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

> >

> > The three religions failed in another significant way. None of

them

> > attacked slavery or race prejudice or other flagrant

inhumanities

> of

> > man to man from the very beginning of their existence. The Arabs

of

> > today sanction slavery as spontaneously as the Popes of the 19th

> > century sanctioned the creation of castrati choirs for Papal

> masses,

> > as readily and blindly as the Protestant ethic of the white

American

> > sanctioned the serfdom and degradation of the Negro race until

the

> > second half of the 20th century. Each religion has practiced the

> art

> > of climbing on the bandwagon: only when lay and secular

reformers,

> > sometimes lacking any formal religion whatever, raised such a

hue

> > and cry that men's consciences were stirred, did the religions

> begin

> > to turn their huge resources toward reform. The Catholic Church

in

> > Germany and Italy acquiesced in Nazism and Fascism at least in

the

> > earlier stages of the ideologies. Russian Orthodoxy acquiesced

in

> > the despotism and sadism of Czarist times. Greek Orthodoxy

> > sanctioned the corruption of the Byzantine court and is today

> > bitterly nationalist in Greece's disputes with Turkey. No

> Protestant

> > Church and no Jewish Synagogue ever officially condemned and

> > attacked the Ku Klux Klan before 1945 in America, though

> individuals

> > did. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have practiced the double

> > standard in this matter ...

> >

> > Thus the three religions have not been witnesses to the truth.

All,

> > it is true, have developed an exalted vocabulary, and a very

> > impressive manner of announcing their own grandiose claims. All

> > three have excelled and excel in words, as distinct from

actions.

> > All three have an impressive ritual and have refined

psychological

> > approaches to man. Yet the witness of words, mere words, has

never

> > changed men's minds, nor has mere theological subtlety helped

men

> to

> > be better men. The witness of the three religions have been

faulty,

> > at times perniciously false and erroneous. The three of them

have

> > witnessed to the uses of hate for the love of a god. And all

three

> > have disposed of the lives and happiness of millions of human

> beings

> > without any real feeling for human suffering or any genuine

concern

> > for the concrete realities of life.

> >

> > It is clear, first of all, that today all three religions lack

any

> > authoritative note for man. They have, as yet, each one of them,

> > sufficient number of adherents to give the impression of

continuing

> > strength, and this glosses over for them and for the outside

world

> > at times their terrible weakness. For each of them, when

> scrutinized

> > closely, is blackened with sufficient failures to prevent any

> > thinking man from believing in them. And, above all, all three

> > persevere in making a claim which cannot possibly be valid and

> true:

> > that they are, each single one, the true religion.

> >

> > Each one of them, however, hides from the ultimate test of its

> > validity and truth behind a wall of unknowing and expectation.

All

> > three chorus that only the " Last Day, " when the " End " comes,

> > when " God " decides, will it be clear that the " other two " and

all

> > others besides were false, and it (the claimant) was all along

the

> > true community of the one " God. " " 1

> >

> > As we speak hundreds of millions of their followers loudly snore

in

> > ignorance of the Last Judgment and Resurrection taking place. We

> now

> > know that all along none were the true community of the

one " God. "

> > The proof is that even after being given evidence of their holy

> > scriptures regarding the Divine Message each one of them

continues

> > to hide from the ultimate test of its validity and truth behind

a

> > wall of unknowing and expectation.

> >

> > Thus the three religions have not been witnesses to the truth.

All,

> > it is true, have developed an exalted vocabulary, and a very

> > impressive manner of announcing their own grandiose claims. All

> > three have excelled and excel in words, as distinct from

actions.

> > All three have an impressive ritual and have refined

psychological

> > approaches to man. Yet the witness of words, mere words, has

never

> > changed men's minds, nor has mere theological subtlety helped

men

> to

> > be better men. The witness of the three religions have been

faulty,

> > at times perniciously false and erroneous. Even the

proclaimation

> of

> > the Last Judgment and Resurrection does not move them because

their

> > religion and prophets, to the exclusion of all others, does not

> > triumph over the rest. This is the greatest tradegy and

hypocrisy

> of

> > these three religions and their followers.

> >

> > Jai Shri Mataji,

> >

> >

> > jagbir

> >

> >

> > 1. (Malachi Martin, The Encounter, Farrar, Straus and Giroux,

1970,

> 329-

> > 32. )

> >

> > , " Violet "

<vtubb@b...>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Jagbir,

> > >

> > > Here is an article (URL given below) on the subject of

> > Christianity and Islam. The actual title of the article is:

> > >

> > > " Sister Religions — but don't pick the ugly one. "

> > >

> > > Could you please comment on this article by James Byrne and

from

> > your knowledge and experience, give some understanding that

might

> > help Mr. Byrnes to see Islam, which

> means " surrender " .... 'surrender

> > to God'.... in a better light.

> > >

> > > Can i just say here also that we must realize that all

> > Incarnations and Prophets come from God. The Christians against

> > Muslims and vice versa scenario must stop, if we are ever to

have

> > Peace On Earth and Goodwill Towards Men. This scenario will not

be

> > accepted in the Golden Age of the Spirit to come.

> > >

> > > It really must come from the hearts of Christians and Muslims

to

> > forget about externals and each go within to receive the Baptism

of

> > the Holy Spirit/the Ruh of Allah. Then they will realize and

agree

> > with other Sahaja Yogis (Born of the Spirit persons) that

indeed,

> > all branches come from the same Tree of Life. All these

> Incarnations

> > and Prophets have come at different Times, when needed in

various

> > cultures to enlighten humanity according to their ability to

> receive

> > the Higher Truths.

> > >

> > > Alternatively, it is just like one branch of a tree telling

> > another branch of that same tree, that it does not belong on

that

> > Tree. Such a concept comes from the Kindergarten Class. At this

> time

> > all human beings need to wake up and realize that it is time to

> > graduate to the Grown-up's Class. In this class human beings

change

> > their concepts because they realize that we all, regardless of

> > religious/spiritual background, just need to 'become the

Spirit',

> by

> > having our Second Birth of the Spirit, which is the same as the

Ruh

> > of Allah. Also, regardless of which religious tradition one

comes

> > from, it will be felt as a Cool Breeze of the Holy Spirit/Cool

> > Breeze of Allah as a Sure Sign that one has been Born into the

> > Kingdom of God within.

> > >

> > > Therefore, it will only be the Spirit of God that can truly

unite

> > us all into one Human Spiritual Family. As Shri Mataji

> tells.... 'we

> > are all connected.... and the connecting line is of love.... not

of

> > hatred'. And to get there, i believe we are going to have to

shed a

> > lot of dogma, doctrine, and conditionings.

> > >

> > > i await your response, Jagbir.

> > >

> > > Violet

> > >

> > > (http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/JamesByrne30526.htm)

> > >

> >

>