• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

New Agers and the Christian God

dgirl1986

Big Queer Chesticles!
A question about New Ages...do the majority hold a belief in the Christian God, or...? Or is this a misrepresentation?
 

Iti oj

Global warming is real and we need to act
Premium Member
from my understanding, the answer to both your questions is yes!
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
I think what Iti might mean is that many New Agers often maintain a overt Christian slant in their worldview, but add in enough non-canonical material that they might not be considered your "conventional Christian" (whatever that means) by others (including New Agers themselves). This has been my general feeling interacting with the New Age community.
 

Penumbra

Veteran Member
Premium Member
A question about New Ages...do the majority hold a belief in the Christian God, or...? Or is this a misrepresentation?
This thread is a couple weeks old but I'll give it a shot.

New Age beliefs are incredibly broad. It's a giant umbrella of beliefs.

-It's a fairly common New Age belief that god is not anthropomorphized, that it does not have some distinct personality. It could be called "God" anyway, or "Source" or "the Divine" or other things. Christians usually describe their deities as having rather distinct personalities. Some New Age believers may specifically worship "Goddess" or call her by other names. It's very diverse.

-Most New Age believers won't believe in things like the Hebrew Bible being an accurate representation of things that their deity has done, or in canon Christian beliefs like the Nicene Creed, and so forth. Many will still find metaphorical interpretations to be useful, or the religion as being partially correct. Some of them may take a somewhat more gnostic approach and believe that the god of the Abrahamic religions is a lesser being than the true god or source. Others may simply say that it's that culture's understanding of god at the time.

-Some New Age believers still incorporate a lot of Christian imagery or content.

-Many New Age believers are syncretic; they draw content from numerous religions.

-Many New Agers believe in things like spirit guides, enlightened beings, masters, etc. Some of them will categorize figures like the Buddha or Jesus here. Some of them would say that Jesus represents mastery of human potential; a guide to show the way to be like him. Same for the Buddha and other figures. Christians would generally view such notions as theologically incorrect. Some New Age believers may say that Jesus was an extra terrestrial.

-My mother has a rather Christian-focused type of New Age. She wouldn't really use New Age to describe herself; it's just an umbrella term that various organizations may be a part of or distance themselves from. Her organization doesn't like the term New Age to describe itself, but apparently thinks itself as close enough to have articles explaining the subtle differences. She believes in angelic healing, miracle healing, the law of attraction, spirit guides, that Jesus was a master of things that all humans can do because they have a divine spark or in them, etc.
 

Being

Being
I appreciate Penumbra's post above. It states a lot of what I would've written in reply to the OP.
New Agers and the Christian God | ReligiousForums.com
I would add that since the New Age Movement began as a primarily western society phenomenon (although incorporating beliefs that are non-western), the character and concept of Jesus Christ naturally figures prominently in New Age. However, New Age grows by accretion. So, there is probably more by proportion, now, that is not directly related to Jesus Christ than there was before. However, since beliefs and views pertaining to Jesus Christ have continued to influence other beliefs, religions, philosophies, ideologies throughout the world -- and as elements of all these become related to and incorporated into the New Age umbrella, then elements pertaining to Jesus Christ will enter New Age from secondary and tertiary sources in evolving variations, as well as from the primary sources (Christianity in its varieties). So, New Age is a living and dynamic movement within which there will always be views about, and influences from, Jesus Christ. ~ Peace, Being
 

Being

Being
A question about New Ages...do the majority hold a belief in the Christian God, or...? Or is this a misrepresentation?

I wanted to add another comment in direct response to this part of the question: "a belief in the Christian God..." If you mean what is considered orthodox (or conventionally accepted and agreed upon) concept of the primary deity in the Judeo-Christian religion, as stated by the consensus of the major Christian denominations and organizations, then NO. The nature of New Age is that its concepts and meanings and understandings transcend those orthodox, traditional, conventional concepts.

So, for many or perhaps most New Age thinkers who regard "Jesus Christ," "God," "Heavenly Father," etc., New Agers either regard their views as being more enlightened about the same entity or same being that traditional, orthodox Christians believe in; OR, New Agers think they are referring to (an)other entity or being altogether. And New Agers might think that the (less enlightened) traditional, orthodox views are about non-existent or imaginary or false entities and beings. (E.g., New Ager to conventional Christian: "You believe in a false or non-existent Jesus Christ.")

There are a variety of perspectives among New Agers concerning the distinction between New Age concepts of "Jesus Christ" and "God" and the orthodox, traditional, conventional concepts conveyed by the same terminology. From my own experience of interacting in New Age contexts for nearly 40 years, it seems to be the former POV. That is, the majority of New Agers believe that they are referring to the same entity or being that conventional Christians are referring to, but that New Agers have a more enlightened (and therefore, more correct) understanding of the same beings.

I hold a much more Jungian view of it all.

Peace,
Being
 

Thruve

Sheppard for the Die Hard
This thread is a couple weeks old but I'll give it a shot.

New Age beliefs are incredibly broad. It's a giant umbrella of beliefs.

-It's a fairly common New Age belief that god is not anthropomorphized, that it does not have some distinct personality. It could be called "God" anyway, or "Source" or "the Divine" or other things. Christians usually describe their deities as having rather distinct personalities. Some New Age believers may specifically worship "Goddess" or call her by other names. It's very diverse.

-Most New Age believers won't believe in things like the Hebrew Bible being an accurate representation of things that their deity has done, or in canon Christian beliefs like the Nicene Creed, and so forth. Many will still find metaphorical interpretations to be useful, or the religion as being partially correct. Some of them may take a somewhat more gnostic approach and believe that the god of the Abrahamic religions is a lesser being than the true god or source. Others may simply say that it's that culture's understanding of god at the time.

-Some New Age believers still incorporate a lot of Christian imagery or content.

-Many New Age believers are syncretic; they draw content from numerous religions.

-Many New Agers believe in things like spirit guides, enlightened beings, masters, etc. Some of them will categorize figures like the Buddha or Jesus here. Some of them would say that Jesus represents mastery of human potential; a guide to show the way to be like him. Same for the Buddha and other figures. Christians would generally view such notions as theologically incorrect. Some New Age believers may say that Jesus was an extra terrestrial.

-My mother has a rather Christian-focused type of New Age. She wouldn't really use New Age to describe herself; it's just an umbrella term that various organizations may be a part of or distance themselves from. Her organization doesn't like the term New Age to describe itself, but apparently thinks itself as close enough to have articles explaining the subtle differences. She believes in angelic healing, miracle healing, the law of attraction, spirit guides, that Jesus was a master of things that all humans can do because they have a divine spark or in them, etc.

+100 Interwebz for you my precious. Froob.
 

Angel1

Angel
There is only One God for all. Christian or other is merely one perception of His Being, one aspect known so far to the devotee. But God is All. God is One.

As one climbs up a mountain, he sees the side he is on, ever expanding the higher he ascends. But still, limited inasmuch as he does not see the sides on the other side of the mountain. But once he reaches the peak, then he is able to appreciate the whole scene all around the mountain. He sees the Whole.
 

Being

Being
There is only One God for all. Christian or other is merely one perception of His Being, one aspect known so far to the devotee. But God is All. God is One.

As one climbs up a mountain, he sees the side he is on, ever expanding the higher he ascends. But still, limited inasmuch as he does not see the sides on the other side of the mountain. But once he reaches the peak, then he is able to appreciate the whole scene all around the mountain. He sees the Whole.

Angel1, that's an interesting view and a vivid analogy. What do you think causes the conflicts among individuals and religious groups? If there is only One God, and God is One, where do the differences and the conflicts originate? Does God change? If people's understanding of God is incorrect or changing, does God assist or influence Human understanding to help it become more enlightened?
 

Angel1

Angel
Angel1, that's an interesting view and a vivid analogy. What do you think causes the conflicts among individuals and religious groups? If there is only One God, and God is One, where do the differences and the conflicts originate? Does God change? If people's understanding of God is incorrect or changing, does God assist or influence Human understanding to help it become more enlightened?

Thank you for allowing me to provide further clarifications.

In this New Age of New Teachings, we are taught that we were in the beginning created innocent and ignorant spirit entities that are to attain to perfection through our own individual efforts. We learn and develop through our own personal experiences. Less experiences or lives lived, the less we know. Reincarnation is also an important divine principle. Because we have had different experiences, therefore everyone understands differently, some more than others, depending on our level in the order of evolution. This accounts for the differences and conflicts. But as we grow in perfection, we will find that there were no conflicts, after all.

God does not change. But our perception of God evolves as we evolve in consciousness.

God has a divine plan for the evolution of all His creatures. In fact, we here on Earth are presently undergoing continuing development to prepare us for the true life with God and our ascended brothers in what we call Heaven. Through our studies and experiences, our knowledge and understanding deepen. We will be perfect according to Jesus.
 

Being

Being
Thank you for allowing me to provide further clarifications.

In this New Age of New Teachings, we are taught that we were in the beginning created innocent and ignorant spirit entities that are to attain to perfection through our own individual efforts. We learn and develop through our own personal experiences. Less experiences or lives lived, the less we know. Reincarnation is also an important divine principle. Because we have had different experiences, therefore everyone understands differently, some more than others, depending on our level in the order of evolution. This accounts for the differences and conflicts. But as we grow in perfection, we will find that there were no conflicts, after all.

God does not change. But our perception of God evolves as we evolve in consciousness.

God has a divine plan for the evolution of all His creatures. In fact, we here on Earth are presently undergoing continuing development to prepare us for the true life with God and our ascended brothers in what we call Heaven. Through our studies and experiences, our knowledge and understanding deepen. We will be perfect according to Jesus.

Thank you for your further comment. First, I want to acknowledge that the views you've expressed are not representative of all people who self-identify as being "New Age" in their beliefs. And as other people have pointed out in this thread, the New Age is a broad umbrella term that accommodates a wide variety of beliefs, many of which (or at least certain aspects of them) are at odds with one another. And since I do not primarily identify as "New Age" (although I recognize some sensible and beneficial beliefs and/or practices that are often termed New Age, or that tend to get gathered under that umbrella), after this post, I will refrain from further discussion on this thread. This isn't my thread anyway.

You mentioned the notion of an afterlife with God in Heaven. A person might believe and say that there is some afterlife, or transcendent realm, or presence of some "divine" existence in which there is ultimate unity. But that is speculative, vague, nebulous, and not provable. Such a view is impractical, even irrelevant, for most people living their daily lives in the real world. While holding such a view might help to give people a sense of meaning and purpose, it might also cause problems they don't notice unless they analyze their beliefs. One major and vital area of belief, and of practical living in the real world, concerns the problem of evil and suffering.

It is one thing to feel warm and fuzzy about peace, unity, and harmony in an afterlife. But what about the real, tangible conflicts that do occur in this life -- people opposing, fighting, and warring against one another -- in the name of religion, because of their stated differences of beliefs, practices, lifestyles, and even political policies? These are real conflicts. Even if the people who are opposing and fighting one another all have imperfect perceptions of "God" and the divine plan, the conflict is still real. And the chaos in human society is still real. So is everyone wrong who is in conflict -- i.e., are they all having wrong or faulty perceptions of "God"?

And what about all the people who live in continual turmoil, due to poverty, hunger, abuse, illness, tyranny, or war all around them (although they themselves did not cause their conditions)? I cannot accept that these people are experiencing justifiable karmic consequences of past lives. What do you say to the situation where someone's child gets abducted, raped, tortured, and murdered? There is no religion, ideology, or belief system of any kind that can justifiably imply any blame upon the victim or the victim's loved ones. Any such belief or implication would be indecent, inhumane, anti-human, and just plain wrong. Such a belief would be evil itself.

There is real evil in the world. And often, truly innocent people get victimized through absolutely no fault of their own (whether due to their behavior in this life or any other). I have come across such views before, that use karma to try to explain why it makes sense for innocent people to suffer. And I think those views come basically from one of two places.

One is that such a view comes from someone who has never experienced personal trauma, tragedy, or intense suffering themselves or in the life of a loved one. So, the person uses this type of philosophy to try to rationalize why there is evil in the world, and why it is not prevented by an allegedly all-loving and all-powerful "God." But this is ultimately an irrational belief. It is an escapist type belief. And it is a convenient belief for someone to hold, to whom it does not even apply.

Second, this view is held by someone who actually has suffered trauma or tragedy, or someone close to them has, and they use this belief as a coping mechanism to rationalize and deal with their trauma. It is an attempt for the person to try to make sense out of senseless violence and tragedy, that has affected them personally. It is a way for the person to hold onto their belief in the type of God described above.

I sympathize with those persons in the latter scenario. That is, in the case of someone who is a victim of suffering and is using this belief to cope with the pain and loss. It is irrational, but I understand why they do it. I hope they can receive the psychological and spiritual help they need, to reaffirm their humanity and to recognize that they do not have to be defined by their suffering.

But I think that a person in the former scenario is someone who is in denial and needs to acknowledge their internal cognitive dissonance. Their view of reality, and of the problem of evil, is irrational. And it is not even grounded in their own personal experience. It is a sterile and untested view, from the outside looking in. It is an abstract view with no concrete or tangible substance. The person holding such a view needs to honestly analyze their thinking and deconvert from their irrational beliefs. For one reason, such beliefs (which essentially blame the victim and deny that evil really exists) are an insult to every innocent person who has truly suffered. For another reason, the person holding such irrational and absurd beliefs will likely allow that view to affect other areas of their life in irrational and potentially self-defeating ways, or even self-harming ways. At the least, their views will continue to be antagonistic toward other people.

I recommend Humanism. It is liberating to the mind. It helps a person to be better grounded. And it provides a rational and practical basis for interpreting reality, especially for everyday life in the real world.

And there are many people who self-identify as "New Age" (and even as New Age believers in Christ) who hold to a more Humanistic view of reality and who do not believe that the suffering of innocent people is some sort of karmic retribution.
 
Last edited:

Angel1

Angel
Thank you for your further comment. First, I want to acknowledge that the views you've expressed are not representative of all people who self-identify as being "New Age" in their beliefs. And as other people have pointed out in this thread, the New Age is a broad umbrella term that accommodates a wide variety of beliefs, many of which (or at least certain aspects of them) are at odds with one another. And since I do not primarily identify as "New Age" (although I recognize some sensible and beneficial beliefs and/or practices that are often termed New Age, or that tend to get gathered under that umbrella), after this post, I will refrain from further discussion on this thread. This isn't my thread anyway.

You mentioned the notion of an afterlife with God in Heaven. A person might believe and say that there is some afterlife, or transcendent realm, or presence of some "divine" existence in which there is ultimate unity. But that is speculative, vague, nebulous, and not provable. Such a view is impractical, even irrelevant, for most people living their daily lives in the real world. While holding such a view might help to give people a sense of meaning and purpose, it might also cause problems they don't notice unless they analyze their beliefs. One major and vital area of belief, and of practical living in the real world, concerns the problem of evil and suffering.

It is one thing to feel warm and fuzzy about peace, unity, and harmony in an afterlife. But what about the real, tangible conflicts that do occur in this life -- people opposing, fighting, and warring against one another -- in the name of religion, because of their stated differences of beliefs, practices, lifestyles, and even political policies? These are real conflicts. Even if the people who are opposing and fighting one another all have imperfect perceptions of "God" and the divine plan, the conflict is still real. And the chaos in human society is still real. So is everyone wrong who is in conflict -- i.e., are they all having wrong or faulty perceptions of "God"?

And what about all the people who live in continual turmoil, due to poverty, hunger, abuse, illness, tyranny, or war all around them (although they themselves did not cause their conditions)? I cannot accept that these people are experiencing justifiable karmic consequences of past lives. What do you say to the situation where someone's child gets abducted, raped, tortured, and murdered? There is no religion, ideology, or belief system of any kind that can justifiably imply any blame upon the victim or the victim's loved ones. Any such belief or implication would be indecent, inhumane, anti-human, and just plain wrong. Such a belief would be evil itself.

There is real evil in the world. And often, truly innocent people get victimized through absolutely no fault of their own (whether due to their behavior in this life or any other). I have come across such views before, that use karma to try to explain why it makes sense for innocent people to suffer. And I think those views come basically from one of two places.

One is that such a view comes from someone who has never experienced personal trauma, tragedy, or intense suffering themselves or in the life of a loved one. So, the person uses this type of philosophy to try to rationalize why there is evil in the world, and why it is not prevented by an allegedly all-loving and all-powerful "God." But this is ultimately an irrational belief. It is an escapist type belief. And it is a convenient belief for someone to hold, to whom it does not even apply.

Second, this view is held by someone who actually has suffered trauma or tragedy, or someone close to them has, and they use this belief as a coping mechanism to rationalize and deal with their trauma. It is an attempt for the person to try to make sense out of senseless violence and tragedy, that has affected them personally. It is a way for the person to hold onto their belief in the type of God described above.

I sympathize with those persons in the latter scenario. That is, in the case of someone who is a victim of suffering and is using this belief to cope with the pain and loss. It is irrational, but I understand why they do it. I hope they can receive the psychological and spiritual help they need, to reaffirm their humanity and to recognize that they do not have to be defined by their suffering.

But I think that a person in the former scenario is someone who is in denial and needs to acknowledge their internal cognitive dissonance. Their view of reality, and of the problem of evil, is irrational. And it is not even grounded in their own personal experience. It is a sterile and untested view, from the outside looking in. It is an abstract view with no concrete or tangible substance. The person holding such a view needs to honestly analyze their thinking and deconvert from their irrational beliefs. For one reason, such beliefs (which essentially blame the victim and deny that evil really exists) are an insult to every innocent person who has truly suffered. For another reason, the person holding such irrational and absurd beliefs will likely allow that view to affect other areas of their life in irrational and potentially self-defeating ways, or even self-harming ways. At the least, their views will continue to be antagonistic toward other people.

I recommend Humanism. It is liberating to the mind. It helps a person to be better grounded. And it provides a rational and practical basis for interpreting reality, especially for everyday life in the real world.

And there are many people who self-identify as "New Age" (and even as New Age believers in Christ) who hold to a more Humanistic view of reality and who do not believe that the suffering of innocent people is some sort of karmic retribution.


I understand, perfectly well, even though you may feel that I don't. This is the common world view of life.

From Matthew 16

21 From that time forth began Jesus to show unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

From this passage, everyone should be apprised. We need to Think Spirit to understand the mind of God.
 

Angel1

Angel
We should thank Being for crafting his well-written and well-meaning response. He is not alone in his views on life. Some of the important issues he raised merit further commenting. This response is for everyone who might chance upon this thread.

Thank you for your further comment. First, I want to acknowledge that the views you've expressed are not representative of all people who self-identify as being "New Age" in their beliefs. And as other people have pointed out in this thread, the New Age is a broad umbrella term that accommodates a wide variety of beliefs, many of which (or at least certain aspects of them) are at odds with one another. And since I do not primarily identify as "New Age" (although I recognize some sensible and beneficial beliefs and/or practices that are often termed New Age, or that tend to get gathered under that umbrella), after this post, I will refrain from further discussion on this thread. This isn't my thread anyway.

You mentioned the notion of an afterlife with God in Heaven. A person might believe and say that there is some afterlife, or transcendent realm, or presence of some "divine" existence in which there is ultimate unity. But that is speculative, vague, nebulous, and not provable. Such a view is impractical, even irrelevant, for most people living their daily lives in the real world. While holding such a view might help to give people a sense of meaning and purpose, it might also cause problems they don't notice unless they analyze their beliefs. One major and vital area of belief, and of practical living in the real world, concerns the problem of evil and suffering.

Here are some Proofs of the Afterlife -- The Case for Life After Death. We are into the New Age. To those whose spiritual faculties are already developed and available for their own use, the confirmations from personal experience are incontrovertible. Most of us though, for the time-being, must have to be content with their first-person accounts. But the proofs are everywhere, now. The earnest seeker will always be able to find them.

It is one thing to feel warm and fuzzy about peace, unity, and harmony in an afterlife. But what about the real, tangible conflicts that do occur in this life -- people opposing, fighting, and warring against one another -- in the name of religion, because of their stated differences of beliefs, practices, lifestyles, and even political policies? These are real conflicts. Even if the people who are opposing and fighting one another all have imperfect perceptions of "God" and the divine plan, the conflict is still real. And the chaos in human society is still real. So is everyone wrong who is in conflict -- i.e., are they all having wrong or faulty perceptions of "God"?

There is a Divine Plan. However, man as yet at this stage in his development has not fully understood its workings. Otherwise, he would understand the reasons behind the provisioning of every human experience, both good and bad. For as long as knowledge is still imperfect, conflicts and disagreements cannot be avoided. But we can and should minimize and mitigate the harm, in the meanwhile.

And what about all the people who live in continual turmoil, due to poverty, hunger, abuse, illness, tyranny, or war all around them (although they themselves did not cause their conditions)? I cannot accept that these people are experiencing justifiable karmic consequences of past lives. What do you say to the situation where someone's child gets abducted, raped, tortured, and murdered? There is no religion, ideology, or belief system of any kind that can justifiably imply any blame upon the victim or the victim's loved ones. Any such belief or implication would be indecent, inhumane, anti-human, and just plain wrong. Such a belief would be evil itself.

I hear you. So does God. But have you tried listening more to Him? Ponder His explanations and lessen your complaints. We are all the same, this way. But Christ tells us, “Those who seek, really, deeply and sincerely, will find.”

Who are we? What is our true nature? Are we men or are we spirits? Men’s bodies can be harmed and ultimately, the body dies. But spirit survives.

God is Spirit. And He created spirits in His image. Spirit is consciousness. Spirit never dies. It gains knowledge from experience and evolves notwithstanding any harm done to the flesh body.

Take the case of a driver and his vehicle. The vehicle provides the means of easy transportation, but is it part of the driver? Car manufacturers invent safeguards so that drivers and passengers are not easily harmed even in the event of a collision. Car bodies are specially designed and equipped with safety features. Power brakes, seat belts and airbags are also installed. Still, some harm does come to occupants because the features are man-made and subject to faulty design and factory defects.

But God is Perfect and All-knowing. No way are we spirits harmed by wars, poverty, hunger and all the ills that are mentioned, in this post. God would never allow it. Only our physical body or vehicle for learning in this world can be destroyed. But even so, we the spirits indwelling the body obtain much spiritual benefits from the learning experiences.


There is real evil in the world. And often, truly innocent people get victimized through absolutely no fault of their own (whether due to their behavior in this life or any other). I have come across such views before, that use karma to try to explain why it makes sense for innocent people to suffer. And I think those views come basically from one of two places.

One is that such a view comes from someone who has never experienced personal trauma, tragedy, or intense suffering themselves or in the life of a loved one. So, the person uses this type of philosophy to try to rationalize why there is evil in the world, and why it is not prevented by an allegedly all-loving and all-powerful "God." But this is ultimately an irrational belief. It is an escapist type belief. And it is a convenient belief for someone to hold, to whom it does not even apply.

Second, this view is held by someone who actually has suffered trauma or tragedy, or someone close to them has, and they use this belief as a coping mechanism to rationalize and deal with their trauma. It is an attempt for the person to try to make sense out of senseless violence and tragedy, that has affected them personally. It is a way for the person to hold onto their belief in the type of God described above.

I sympathize with those persons in the latter scenario. That is, in the case of someone who is a victim of suffering and is using this belief to cope with the pain and loss. It is irrational, but I understand why they do it. I hope they can receive the psychological and spiritual help they need, to reaffirm their humanity and to recognize that they do not have to be defined by their suffering.

But I think that a person in the former scenario is someone who is in denial and needs to acknowledge their internal cognitive dissonance. Their view of reality, and of the problem of evil, is irrational. And it is not even grounded in their own personal experience. It is a sterile and untested view, from the outside looking in. It is an abstract view with no concrete or tangible substance. The person holding such a view needs to honestly analyze their thinking and deconvert from their irrational beliefs. For one reason, such beliefs (which essentially blame the victim and deny that evil really exists) are an insult to every innocent person who has truly suffered. For another reason, the person holding such irrational and absurd beliefs will likely allow that view to affect other areas of their life in irrational and potentially self-defeating ways, or even self-harming ways. At the least, their views will continue to be antagonistic toward other people.

First, Being is correct in questioning the workings of Karma, as it is currently widely understood. It is wrong to allow the innocent to become victims, and suffer needlessly. So God doesn’t. Never.

But, we have had many previous incarnations, if we had not, then we would still be like the early humanoids, aborigines and cave men – undeveloped and unevolved. Because of our ignorance and selfish ways, we perforce will have committed wrongs in our past lives, not knowing any better. Our not remembering them does not exempt us from the consequences. Those debts must be paid. In this sense, Karma is reactive. There must have been a previous action in our past lives that caused the reaction in the present life.

To explain away the seeming injustice suffered by allegedly innocent victims, we need to understand another equally important but largely unknown divine principle. Dharma provides that everything whatsoever that we need in order to perfect ourselves will be provided to us, mostly by way of a personal experience.

How can we learn that something is wrong unless we experience the harmful effects. How can we learn justice, if there is no injustice: to be understanding, unless we ourselves become a victim of intolerant behavior; to be kind, if we were not treated cruelly, to love, if we were not hated at some point in time.

If a spirit entity is weak and predisposed to harming others, just because it can. There does need to be a first action or offense on his part. The experience that will help him to understand and overcome his weakness will be provided to him. It is the same principle that applies when we undergo vaccination. We gladly and willingly submit to a painful injection because we want immunity from a dreaded disease for the rest of our life.


I recommend Humanism. It is liberating to the mind. It helps a person to be better grounded. And it provides a rational and practical basis for interpreting reality, especially for everyday life in the real world.

And there are many people who self-identify as "New Age" (and even as New Age believers in Christ) who hold to a more Humanistic view of reality and who do not believe that the suffering of innocent people is some sort of karmic retribution.

Humanism is good for those who are helped by it. But Humanism and all worldly remedies, religions and paths are just bridges that lead to the “Truth.” At some point, we will have to get off the bridge and move onward. To those who are aware of the Spirit Reality, your real world is merely a world of illusion. Things are really not what they seem.
 
Top