Chris Butler, soi-disant "teacher of the whole world", consummate blasphemer, anti-Christian, propagandist, perverter of the New Testament, and grandiose "spiritual master ... that began with God Himself".

This forum is a democratic platform for debating on di- verse topics to provide visitors with intellectual en- tertainment. Anyone is free to suggest a topic, for ex- ample 'resolved: Capitol punishment should be abol- ished'. You are invited to argue either for or against a resolution. Others are invited to submit rebuttals from the negative side, preferably with evidential supports. All participants are urged to retain a demeanour of ob-       jectivity free from quibbling, and nit-picking.

Although we subscribe to the principal of the 'right to free speech', as outlined in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ( 1948 ), we reserve the right to censor taboo words, profanities, obscenities, and any other content we consider irresponsible, and in breach of the integrity of our web site.

George G. Amad,
Owner/controller.

Chris   Butler - 'Jagud   Guru',   soi-disant "teacher of the whole world" is a consum- mate   blasphemer,   anti-Christian   propa- gandist, perverter of the New Testament, and a grandiose "spiritual master ... that began with God Himself".

~ PARODYING THE FORMER SPIRITUAL MASTER ~
With a self-given title of 'Jagud Guru', soi-disant Teacher of the whole world, one would expect Chris Butler to be at least au fait with the world, and comfortable in it, rather than wrangling with Christians, particularly with his pièce de résistance so-called prefix, on Christians, society and 'this', 'that' and the 'other'. And given to aggressive proselytism, particularly through repetitive superimposing of the Hindu ( 'Sanâtana Dharma' ( q.v. )) doctrine of 'reincarnation' on to Christian doctrines. Butler evidently inherited this doctrine et alii., from his former spiritual master, the late A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada ( 1896 - 1977 ), and continues parodying it with irritating and monotonous regularity.

~ THE DOCTRINAL PARADOX ~
Reincarnation is a Hindu doctrine, and is incontrovertibly incongruous with Judaeo-Christian beliefs and doctrines. Butler claims: Many so-called Christian teachers ... don't appreciate transmigration of the soul or the science of reincarnation .... ( sic ). ( Jagad Guru, 'Understanding Karma', Science of Identity Foundation, 1995, p.4 ).

Why Butler believes that Christians should want to appreciate transmigration or the pseudo-science of reincarnation; I'm yet to discover. Butler himself, notwithstanding all his preposterous rhetoric, and his insistence that the answer is quite simple ( sic ) ( op. cit., p. 4; ) hasn't provided a rationale. Where indeed, is the 'simple answer' of which he boasts? Can Butler succeed where centuries of Hindu scholarship have failed? Vis à vis, the Hindu doctrine of 'transmigration' is unambiguously incongruous with Judaeo-Christian beliefs and dogmas. They are as different as chalk from cheese. Consequently, one can only deduce from this, that Butler is advocating neither, but rather 'Butlerism'.

Reincarnation, and its associated doctrine of karma, has remained an unrationalized belief since its first inclusion ( in default of theological scrutiny ) in the Chândogya Upanishad between 900 - 800 BC ( q.v. ), followed by the Bhagavad-Gîtâ between 400 - 300 BC ( q.v. ). It is nowhere to be found in the oldest, and most venerated, document in Hinduism, i.e., the Vedas circa 1500 - 800 BC.

~ DOWNGRADING THE NEW TESTAMENT ~
Butler audaciously attempts to diminish the sacred character of the New Testament by describing it merely as a small little book, and invalidate its contents by adding who can believe that! Furthermore, he had the impertinence to undervalue its contents as ...extremely limited, partial, and make an analogy of it with one of his two hour lectures. ( See 'Jagud Guru Speaks: Is God Really Lovable?' Oleo Public Access TV, 2004 ).

Would Butler have the same contemptuous irreverence to reduce the status of the Vedas to a mere small little book, challenge its credibility by asking who can believe that! And diminish its contents as ...extremely limited, partial. And presumptuously compares it to one of his two hour lectures. Would he disparage the Vedas as he did to the New Testament [ particularly in respect to the designated 18 'silent years' ( q.v. ) of Jesus' life between the year 1 or 2 ( q.v. ) ( Luke 2:41-52 ), and year 19 or 21 ( q.v. ) ( Luke 3:21,22 )]; by querying the 600 'silent years' of reincarnation's absence from the Vedas?

~ INTERPOSING HINDUISM INTO CHRISTIANITY ~
In the same television programme ( vs., ) Butler accentuates the unknown factors, or rather the commonly designated 'silent years', of Jesus' activities, instructions, and 'teachings'; in the New Testament material. And assumes a presumptuous prerogative to embellish ( or saffronize! ) Jesus' teachings with bhakti-yoga, astanga-yoga, kundalini-yoga, mystic-yoga; and reincarnation to boot. From where in the New Testament, can Butler quote from, to support these extravagant assumptions of Jesus having taught these schools of 'yoga', and reincarnation? He is, quite clearly, attempting to exploit the New Testament quietude, of the purported 'silent years', in which to interpolate his version of Hindu beliefs and doctrines into Christianity.

~ MASQUERADING POLYTHEISM AS MONOTHEISM ~
Butler masquerades pantheism on the platform of Judaeo-Christian monotheism. His teachings are superficially based upon Hinduism which has a multitude of gods ( e.g., Vishnu, Shiva, Brahmâ et alii ( q.v. )), whom he has not publicly denied. Notwithstanding his feigned Christian rhetoric, embellishments of Christian ethos and piety, he is advocating all that Jesus Christ, His followers, His Holy Church; and Sacred Scripture oppose; viz., ουκ εσονται σοι θεοι ετεροι πλην εμου. / You shall have no other gods before Me. ( Exodus, 20:3 ). Butler is not a Christian, nor was he born into the Hindu caste systems ( varna or jâti ( q.v. )). His writings and lectures are indicative of one not at all au courant of either Hindu or Christian doctrines, but rather of one who oscillates between the two, confused by even the most fundamental theological, and doctrinal differences; particularly regarding 'pantheism' and 'monotheism'.

~ TRANSGRESSOR OF LITERARY CONVENTIONS ~
Butler asserts that 'so-called Christians do not actually have answers', ( op. cit., p. 4 ). This, like many of his other assertions, is conspicuously unaccompanied with: names, places, dates; and reference sources; to validate the veracity of his assertions. This assertion (et alii. ) are suppositional, and until Butler refrains from ignoring literary conventions ( and unfeigned open dialogue or debate ), and publish names, places etc., in support of his assertions; his writings and lectures will continue to remain unadulterated conjecture.

~ TIMOROUSLY RUNNING FROM REASONED ARGUMENTS ~
I have been responding, with reasoned arguments and evidential supports, to this assertion ( i.e., 'so-called Christians do not actually have answers' ), et alii., of Butler's numerous fallacies and disinformations. But when called into question, with truths and facts, [ e.g., 7 November, 2000, misrepresenting Jesus as saying: "As you sow, so shall you reap" ( op. cit., p.6 ) in support of his superinducing polytheistic Hindu beliefs of 'metempsychosis' and 'karma' into Christian text. ], Butler, the soi-disant "Jagud Guru" - Teacher of the whole world - timorously runs to ground; abandoning his inept followers to take up the cudgels. Regrettably, postings on this Forum, by his followers, reflect very little ( if anything at all! ) cerebral benefits from being under the tutorship of their Teacher of the whole world.

~ MEAGRE PARROTINGS ~
Butler is a pathetic caricature of Prabhupada, and a sardonic blasphemer ( See 'Jagud Guru Speaks: Is God Really Lovable?' Oleo Public Access TV, 2004 ), as well as a manipulator, with a panache for misquoting, and misemployment, of the New Testament text, and Christian doctrines; for the sole purpose of proselytizing the unwary to his cult. His comprehension of 'reality' is confined within the consensus of what he has taught his followers, not how to think; but rather what to think; most of which are meagre parrotings inherited from Prabhupada. Consequently, constructing a quasi, or rather, pseudo-reality, with very little, or no resemblance to the measurable physical world.

~ A CONFIRMED BLASPHEMER TEACHING CHRISTIANS TO BE CHRISTIANS ~
Additional to Butler's assumed status of Teacher of the whole world, he is evidently a self-appointed authority, critic, and judge on what Christians, in his opinion, are supposed to be taught. Will he censor the Pope ( Rome ), the Patriarchs ( Constantinople and Moscow ), and all the Protestant church leaders for: teaching religiosity rather than real religion. Instead of teaching love for God, ( sic. ) ( Jagad Guru, 'Is God Your Servant?' November 2007 ), and advise them that the only way to self-realization is to chant the Holy Name, chant the Holy Name, chant the Holy Name. Haribol Haribol ( sic ) ( ibid ). What next!

Will his authority extend to teaching God how to ' chant Haribol! Haribol!' And teach God how to be God? Or even to teach God how to be a ...faceless big dude!, ...cold as ice OK!, ...hard as concrete, and a ... sadist; as he so bumptiously and brazenly did on the Oleo Public Access TV, 2004. Those blasphemous descriptions of God would have earned Butler a standing ovation from Satan himself!

~ HARE KRISHNA RENEGADE ~
Butler's spiritual master ( Prabhupada ) severely reprimanded him for so many discrepancies that he informed him: I cannot allow you to do all these things which are completely detrimental to our line of disciplic succession. ( A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami, letter, 15 June, 1972. Los Angeles. ) Butler is a renegade from the Hare Krishna Movement, and his claim to be a bona fide spiritual master coming in a long line of spiritual teachers that ( According to Prabhupada ) began with God Himself ( sic ) op. cit., p. 30, is disputable. I believe that it is safe to assume that his disciplic succession ( paramparâ ) has, on the strength of Prabhupada's letter, been damaged and invalidated.

Father Maximiadis

6 May, 2008.

"I propose   that all f..s the cause of
AIDS, be exported to a remote island..."
I propose that all f..s the cause of AIDS, be exported to a remote island far away from decent god fearing Christians. AIDS is their punishment for their sinful lives. They and other sickos like them are doomed to the ever lasting fires of hell unless they repent and return to the fold of Biblical Christianity and abandon their sinful ways. They are sinners and deserve the full wrath of the Lord. I love Jesus but I dont hate them I love them. I pity them but hate what they do. a soldier of Jesus AL, US October 19, 2007.

"Soldier of Jesus", thank you for entering your 'proposal' on this Forum.

I must say that I found your 'proposal' very rather disconcerting, insensitive, injurious, and judgemental. Your use of the North American slang word: "f..s", to describe homosexuals ( now commonly designated "gay" ) is not acceptable on this Forum.

Your 'proposal' lacks understanding of those, that is to say, ego-syntonic homosexuals, whose inherited libidinal impulse is directed towards an exclusive sexual propensity for others of their own gender, and futheremore, you ignore the fact that an homosexual propensity for the opposite gender would be contrary to organization and criterion of the homosexual psycho-sexual consciousness. In like manner, propensity of the ego-syntonic heterosexual towards the same gender, would be contrary to the the heterosexual libidinal impulse.

Your suggestion that homosexuals were "...the cause of AIDS" ( Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome ) is naïve and misleading. The actual cause of AIDS is a retrovirus described as HTLV-3 ( Human T-cell Lymphotropic Virus ) of the RNA family of viruses. The presence of AIDS is not limited to homosexuals. It has also been diagnosed among bisexual males, their female partners, and children, as well as those who were exposed to contaminated blood. Are they '...sinners and deserve the full wrath of the Lord?' Should they also be '...exported to a remote island?'

Homosexuals ( and lesbians ), are a part of us - "No man is an Island, entire of it self; every man is a piece of the Continent, a part of the main..." ( John Donne, Devotions upon Emergent Occasions ( 1624 )) - we are all bound together in the human family, including those [ whether you approve or not ] with predominant genetic forms of homosexual expression.

Those who profess to be Christians ought to be promoting love and understanding towards their neighbours. At Perea, Jesus said: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself' ( Matthew, 19: 19b. NKJV ). Furtheremore, your 'proposal' is fiercely hostile and judgmental, and uncharacteristic of Jesus' sermon, at Kefar Nahum, where He said: "Judge not, that you be not judged. "For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the same measure you use, it will be measured back to you. ( Matthew, 7:1,2. NKJV )

In conclusion, I question your "soldier of Jesus" façade. Broadly, homophobic attitudes might be considered defense mechanisms against homosexual panic, denial of underlying conflicts of your own primary repressions? Or fighting an external war as a defense, as a means to address your own repressed homosexuality.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
William Shakespeare, Hamlet, act 3, sc. 2, l. [242]

Thank you for participating on our Forum, and if in the future you wish to participate again, you'll be most welcome, but we suggest you refrain from your homophobic rhetorical posturing from behind the veneer of Christian piety.

Rev. Father Maximiadis.

20 October, 2007.

An Invitation to Swami Jagad Guru Siddhaswarupananda Paramahamsa.
Swami Jagad Guru Siddhaswarupananda Paramahamsa, You might recall me having written to you on the 7 November 2000, regarding, what I consider, ill-founded comments you made in your booklet 'Understanding Karma', (1995). These comments, int. al., included:
1.   Recurrent vilification of Christians.

2.   Superinducing upon Christians generic philosophical questions, concerning the doctrine of metempsychosis and karmic law; accompanied with untutored, unauthenticated replies.

3.   Fabrication of Jesus' words to support the Hindu doctrine of 'karma', and 'metempsychosis.'
Swami, you have not responded to my letter in the ensuing four and a half year period. Would you be prepared to accept my invitation to debate the above issues, on this forum.

Rev. Father Maximiadis.

8 September, 2005.

23-Postings of Puerile, Flippant Re- marks, and Irrelevant Assumptions.
Swami, recently it was brought to my attention that, on 20 October 2003, between 1:43 and 4:49PM, you, and presumably some of your devotees, posted 23-items, bandying puerile, flippant remarks, and irrelevant assumptions about me on the Istagosthi web site; evidently, responses of sorts, to my posting on the Open Letters page on this web site. I believe the appearance of those postings, on the same day, and within a 186-minute period, was very rather suggestive of a Machiavellian design than a coincidental factor; wouldn't you think?

Moreover, some of those postings, consisted for the most part, of pastings, 6 to be precise, cut from fathershomepage.com accompanied with unfounded, demeaning glib comments, and aspersions, added by yourself, and your devotees, v.g.,
"Phew, Maximiadis indeed. Here's more on him..., "Anglo-Celtic- Australian...prostitutes in New South Wales...". "Sounds like our friend Chatter!"
Swami, I'm curious to know if the "phew" was suppose to denote 'surprise' or 'contempt'? And also curious to know what reference, to the matter in hand, has the accompanying glib comments? Additionally, there were other postings consisting of irrelevant assumptions about me, e.g., you, yourself, made the following generalized disapprobations:
"This is the way that sectarian propagandists work. It is really most unfair. The purpose is not to find light and friendship, but to muddy the waters and prove one's own superiority over others."
Swami, if you care to peruse fathershomepage.com, in its entirety, you'll conclude from the absence of any evidence that you were sorely mistaken in having alleged that I'm a 'propagandist'. If you had read the 'Nota Bene' statement, situated on the Archive page you would not have made such an incautious assertion.

Misuse of the nouns: Sect,
Sectarian and Propagandist.

Firstly, the Church to which I belong, viz., the Greek Orthodox Church, can hardly be described as a 'sect', because, it can be demonstrated on the historic record, that it has existed since the first century vid., F.L. Cross, ed., The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2nd éd. 1974, pp. 591, 1012-14.

A 'sect' is a comparatively small body of followers who are inclined to reject the established Church, its teachings, and traditions, and estrange themselves from society vid., Oxford Dictionary, 9th ed, 1997-99, p. 1092d.

Secondly, it would be inapplicable to delineate me, or my fellow priests, as "sectarian". And thirdly, the fact that I do not propagate any particular beliefs, dogmas, or practice; nor proselytize is plainly attested throughout the web site; thus your 'sectarian propagandist' allegation disappears. If you disagree, I invite you to debate this topic, with me, on this forum.

In your opinion, I don't seek "light and friendship", and I supposedly "muddy the waters" to evince "superiority over others". You also censured me for alleged 'unfairness', and "make(ing) things up".

I observed no character of "light and friendship" in your patent breach of common courtesy electing not to deal with me directly, but rather conduct clandestine oblique quibbling, about me, safely among your obliging devotees; agreeable to all your sentiments and opinions.

And as for my alleged 'unfairness', and "make(ing) things up", I challenge the veracity of your accusations by inviting you onto this open forum to debate, with me, on these allegations; with evidential supports. And more particularly, demonstrate to our visitors, your devotees, and me, that you yourself do not "make(ing) things up" by quoting the actual chapter and verse, in the Bible, where you alleged ( in your booklet 'Understanding Karma', (1995), p.6.)), that Jesus said: "As you sow, so shall you reap". So who really 'makes things up?' Care to answer this in the forum?

You obviously prefer the oblique modus operandi, in your own comfort zone, amongst your own unquestioning devotees - easy to go with the audience who claps the loudest - rather than making yourself available for public scrutiny, in an open rational debate, with me, on the very subject matters you yourself pontificated on, in your own publication, l.s.c. I wrote you a 1,757-word letter of serious content, and you responded clandestinely with 106-word flippant irrelevancies. In my opinion, your standard of internet behaviour is sadly wanting.

In response to your assumption, that I "muddy the waters" to evince "superiority over others", I present a proposition from a psychological perspective, for your perusal, and response. A ascribes personal unconscious sentiments, values and subjective processes upon B assuming B 'muddies waters to prove superiority over others'. I perceive this as A's denial, or defense mechanism against recognizing these same processes within A itself. I think it reasonable to assume that this is an avoidance mechanisms of A to: muddy(ing) the waters, to negate B rather than negotiate.

You said:
"The good father is pretty good. I think he would make mincemeat of most devotees in a debate. Hridayananda would probably be able to take him on if he still has the taste for that kind of thing. ... Of course, it is less pleasant to be the object of misrepresentation, especially when the person doing the misrepresenting is obviously doing so maliciously. ... he's criticizing, albeit with the gloss (or shield) of scholarship."
I would not gain pleasure from, as you, a vegetarian, so garishly put it, "make mincemeat of most devotees in a debate" or anybody else for the matter of that. Yes, it would be "... less pleasant to be the object of misrepresentation" if one was, ipso facto being 'misrepresented', which in your case you were quite clearly not. These are quite manifestly diversions you deploy, to gain points, by deflecting attention away from my discussions to some extraneous matters. If you believe that you were 'misrepresented with obvious malice', indicate the precise sentence - if you can - from my letter; and discuss.

And your suggestion, to your devotees, that 'Hridayananda would probably be able to take me on...' is tantamount to calling someone else to clean up your mess. My letter was addressed to you, not Hridayananda. You're the author of 'Understanding Karma' in which you yourself denigrate Christians, misreported Jesus Christ. It's your mess, not Hridayananda's. So you ought to accept full responsibility for it.

Yamaraja, presumably one of your devotees, comments:

"Coming from the Christian background, I can tell you that 90% of the Chritians "SEE" all those that are not in-line with their doctrine as inferior and in need of conversion. I know I have been in the same state of mind before. Even the humblest and most kind Christian will have the elitist judging voice in the back of their head!! The doctored version of the bible has conditioned its followers to this mentality! No matter what point the Rev. has made, it is all tainted by his "conversion" mentality. He only argues these points out of his desire to convert. If he was truly following Jesus, he never would of read the said pamphlet!!!"
Yamaraja, I'm eager to learn about your unique ability to "know" the "state of mind" of "90% of the Chritians" who "have the elitist judging voice in the back of their head!!" 'Knowing' the 'state of mind' of "90%" of 2.1 billion Christians, or approximately 33% of the world population [ David B. Barrett, World Christian Encyclopedia, 1994 ], is no small feat even by a very long chalk . And, by the by, would you please name the source from where you extrapolated that figure of "90%", and persuade me to believe that you really haven't "the same state of mind" now, in your newfangle Jagad's pseudo-Hindu cult?

You refer to "the doctored version of the bible". Perhaps you can enlighten our visitors, and I myself, by discussing this unheard-of "doctored version" on this forum. If not, at least let us know where we can obtain a copy?

Your opinion that I have a "conversion" mentality is utterly ungrounded. On the 'Nota Bene' statement, situated on the Archive page, it clearly states:
'The views, opinions and comments, expressed in Father's Home Page are solely those of Father, or other writers, and not to be considered as being representative of the Graeco-Russian Orthodox Church, nor of its views, teachings or dogmas'.
Firstly, where, in fathershomepage.com, can evidential support be found to demonstrate my supposed "conversion" mentality ?

Secondly, how did you reach that conclusion that I desire to convert ? You cannot assume what I desire, whether it be to 'convert' or otherwise, unless: (a) I disclose my intention to you, specifically what it is I'm suppose to desire, or (b) that you provide evidential support, v.g., a cerebral roentgen-ray image of my desire to convert . Or are your assumption, that I desire to convert, based upon some hypothesized telepathic ability you have to read my mind?

And thirdly, your argument that: "If he was truly following Jesus, he never would of read the said pamphlet!!!" Yamaraja, what I read was a 'booklet' not a "said pamphlet" vid., The Concise Oxford Dictionary 9th ed., 1999 p.126 1a, and p. 859.

You are saying that whether or not one reads 'pamphlets' ( or 'booklets' ), would be a decisive factor of a 'true follower' of Jesus?

As well as booklets and pamphlets, would the reading of material on the internet also act as a decisive factor, whether or not one was a 'true follower' of whoever?

If so, I would deduce from this that you would not be a 'true follower' of Jagad Guru if you had have read my article on the internet.

I wouldn't think you'd have any worries about this because I don't believe that you read beyond the opening page - if that - nor do I believe you came from a "Christian background" that encouraged very much cerebral activity in learning the more perceptive understanding of Biblical theology and Ecclesiology. However, I wish you Peace, Love and Happiness for your spiritual journey, and hope that you'll participate in a future debate on our forum.

In conclusion, I invite Swami Paramahamsa to debate on all, or some of these issues on this open forum.

Rev. Father Maximiadis.

8 September, 2005.

"Whos the Schmuck now!!!"
hey jagad! you take the priest as a schmuck a!!! now you cant take the bull by the horns a!!! whos the schmuck now!!! Paul. Calif. US September 27. 2005

"You won't get any answers".
Get real father, you won't get any answers because they don't have any. Jagad is an arrogant d....... like his teacher Prabhupada. That other d....... Yamaraja or is it Wackaraja the turncoat who couldn't make it in Christianity and jumps into Jagad's cult and tries to take you on. What a f..... d.......! Jean. Saskatoon, Can. 29 September. 2005

"Jagad is the only true teacher."
Who does he think he is. Jagad doesn't have to stoop down to his level. He wouldn't understand Jagad's teaching anyway. Everything he wrote about Jagad is lies. I know all about him! All he knows is prostitutes in nsw and shoving things down peoples throats and taking their money. Jagad is the only true teacher. Satyaraja. Sydney. N.S.W. 30 September, 2005.

"That priest is right on to you hes   got   you sussed out!!"
Jagad, you s... yourself! so you clean it up right!!! Dont call in mr fix-it that other guy to clean up your crap! That priest is right on to you hes got you sussed out!! And you think your the teacher of the world!!!! Who do you think you are Jesus Christ or some thing!! Wake up to yourself and listen to the priest O.K you might learn some thing and stop all your bull s.... right!!!! Brian. Christchurch England. 4 october 2005.

"Give Jagad a break.
stop judging him..."
Give Jagad a break, stop judging him with that d....... priest. Jagad knows more than him but isn't a big mouth like him. I agree with Satyaraja. Why should Jagad lower himself to his level which is lies and more lies. Jagad keep on teaching the truth while that d....... priest sticks to prostitutes in NSW and carries on with his bull s... . Bet this doesn't make it to this crappy forum!!!!!!!. Anand. Sydney, Australia 5 October 2005.

"He is misrepresenting
Jagad" ( "again!!!!" )"
The priest denies that he misrepresents and he has no malice. He challenges us to find a sentense to prove him wrong. I have discovered just that sentense! In his very own words he stated . He is misrepresenting Jagad ( again!!!! ) and his religion by calling his religion a cult. He wont slip the collar this time!!!!! Siddhesvar Sydney 8 October 2005

"... polytheism ( Hinduism ) masquerading under the assumed dictum of monotheism ( Judeo- Christian, Islamic traditions ) ... "

Thank you Siddhesvar for your entry into the forum. Firstly, I should like to make it quite clear, I did not 'misrepresent' Swami Jagad Guru, or anybody else for that matter. What I wrote was responses to Jagad Guru's fallacious statements purporting to be facts about me which is a far cry from 'misrepresentation'.

Secondly, I find your entry, along with others, hypercritical and quibbling without one single reference to any of the issues I raised in my 'Invitation to Swami Jagad Guru' of 8 September 2005.

Thirdly, you, among others, don't appear to express your own independent opinions, but rather, parrot Jagad Guru's unsubstantiated assertions, made on the 20 October 2003, that I 'misrepresented' him with "obvious malice". Your opinions, or to be precise Jagad's opinions, I believe, transcends pettifoggery and repetitiousness.

Fourthly, I have no malice aforethought towards Jagad Guru, nor his late teacher Swami Bhaktivedanta, due to my ethical obligations to respect the other human person ( Luke 6:27-8 ). Everything considered, my attention is not averted from Jagad's oft-recurring denigratory comments against Christians, and in particular his, and in the writings of the late Bhaktivedanta, flagrant misquoting of Christian text to proselytize unwary Christians, to their own diluted form of Hinduism.

My description of Jagad Guru's 'pseudo-Hindu cult' is neither malicious nor a misrepresentation, but no more than an indicator of a gathering of adherents who have rejected some, or all, of the beliefs of the mainstream religions, and foregathered round a persuasive cultist who is au fait with Christian phraseology, with a soupçon of injudicious quotations, from the Bible, most of which are incongruous. I have demonstrated this time and time again in my unanswered letters to Jagad Guru and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness .

Jagad Guru's teachings are quintessentially pantheistic, his ideologies are a diminutive mélange of selected acquisitions from Hinduism, peculiar to the Indian sub-continent, and including a plethora of his own naïve metaphysical and anti-Christian speculations.

Jagad pays no heed to the fact that Hinduism is a polytheistic religion whereas the Judeo-Christian, and Islamic tradition are monotheistic; he would recall me making this very point in my original unanswered letter to him.

His brand of polytheism ( Hinduism ) masquerading under the assumed dictum of monotheism ( Judeo-Christian, Islamic traditions ) may be appealing to those not au fait with religious ( or theological ) studies, but will cut no ice with the more discerning thinkers. Vacillating between the polythestic and montheistic divide is, in my opinion, tantamount to theological schizophrenia.

Siddhesvar, Sorry about 'slipping your collar', but like your arguments, it simply didn't fit.

If you disagree with all I have said, I invite you to debate with me. And, in particular, I also invite Jagad Guru, yet again, to accept my invitation, to debate these topics with me.

With an assumed epithetic name 'Jagad Guru' ( "teacher of the entire world" ) he would be quite adept in arguing for upholding his teachings, on this forum, in front of our visitors; and his devotees. Will he accept my invitation?

Rev. Father Maximiadis.

24 October, 2005.

“ ... Was    jesus   apostoles
thinking of reincarnation...?”
Father, very informative. Enjoyable read though it gets hot under the collar at times!! I have no opinion either way on this but was jesus apostoles thinking of reincarnation when they said “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” John, 9:2. Whats your opinions on this? Matthew Melbourne 26 October, 2005

"Interposing these allegorical con-
notations,   ss.,   metempsychosis,
into Judaeo-Christian narrative will
not alter the self-evident truths on
the observable surface".
Matthew, please forgive me for the long delay in responding to your comments, and question for this forum.

Matthew, your query regarding the question asked by Jesus' disciples ( John 9:2 ), at Jerusalem ( or Magadan ); is not in any way related to metempsychosis ( reincarnation ).

The disciples ask Jesus: "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" ( ibid. ). The point at issue here is Jesus giving light to one who was sightless from birth. Jesus said: " ... I am the light [ italics mine ] of the world" ( John 9:5 b ). From this we can deduce that mankind is, by nature, sightless from birth, viz. the intrinsic potential towards transgressions. The light, that Jesus brings to man is not an heritable right, but a divine gift from God without an integrating of man's transgressions with afflictions.

This particular miracle story, is not dissimilar to the other six miracles mentioned in John. The decisive point at issue, in these stories, is the providential occasions of God's philanthropy through the 'works' ( vid. ibid. 9:3-5 ) of Jesus.

Metempsychosis is, as I have said elsewhere on this site, a component part of various religions, including Hinduism, Buddhism etc., in an attempt to provide an ethical rationale for the disparities of man.

Interposing these allegorical connotations, ss., metempsychosis, into Judaeo-Christian narrative will not alter the self-evident truths on the observable surface, i.e., metempsychosis cannot be substantiated within the Canon of Jewish, and N.T. Scriptures.

Metempsychosis is incompatible with the fundamental component of the Christian doctrine of mankind's ultimate destiny ( the Parousia and Resurrection ). Christians who believe in both the doctrine of metempsychosis, and the Resurrection, need to evaluate the seriousness of their spiritual direction. Believing in both is a contradiction in terms.

Thank you Matthew for your comments. I hope that I have provided a satisfactory answer to your question.

Rev. Father Maximiadis.

4 July, 2006.

"How phoney can can one get
calling themself teacher of the
whole world".
Father, I see that youre not the only one after answers from Chris Butler aka the "jagad guru". How phoney can can one get calling themself teacher of the whole world. He should take a good look at himself especially about his ... [ CENSORED! ] ... and thinks of himself a bigshot teacher. I'm an atheist myself and tho I have no belief in the existence of god I do enjoy reading your style of arguing, it's coherent and a good read regardless of the contents. Butler and his cronies hasn't a hope in the world of dealing with you and he knows it! He and his moron cronies are complete dropkicks and deserve the big miss. Peter Brisbane 20 July, 2006

"Butler lacks an   intellectual
aptitude   in   supporting   his
own ludicrous propositions".
Thank you Peter for your entry into the forum. Yes, I'm aware of the fact that I'm not the only one seeking answers from Chris Butler, self-proclaimed teacher of the entire world.

He is undoubtedly an ambiguous figure, who prefers to operate clandestinely, obviously to avoid others, as well as myself, from questioning his superficial quasi-Hindu teachings admix with misquotes of Christian Scripture; and his continuous disparagment of Christians to boot.

Chris Butler is, in my opinion, suggestive of a very insipid pasteboard cutout of his former teacher, and mentor; the late Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. Comparatively speaking, there is a noticeable exception, in that unlike his teacher, he lacks an intellectual aptitude in supporting his own ludicrous propositions, preferring moonlight flits, and taking refuge behind whimsical and impertinent responses of his ground troops. However, he has managed to inherit the pompouse and supercilious attitude from his former teacher; who better!

An example, from my own personal observation, of Prabhupada's contemptuous attitude was in the early 70s q.l., on the occasion of his first public lecture in the Melbourne Town Hall - then claiming self-given title of "spiritual centre of the world" - where I asked him specific questions relating to Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan's comments on the Bhagavadgîtâ, for which he flippantly replied: "What can I say, but the man [ Radhakrishnan ] is but a fool", which was immediately followed by a loud round of applause from his devotees. As I attempted to put the question a second time, an even louder round of applause drowned out my efforts, whilst his devotees promptly seized the microphone from me. Prabhupada, unlike Chris Butler, at least, had the fortitude of character, in making himself available on open public platforms.

Without putting too fine a point on it, I should think, Butler is tarred with the same brush, as Prabhupada, of grandiosity, arrogance, beyond the ridiculous.

Peter, I would have assumed that Chris Butler would have had no problem accepting my invitation to answer several of my theses responding to his publications. I would also assume he would be more than able to cut the mustard with my theses rather than doing the cut and dash, particularly with an assumed self-glorifying epithetic name 'Jagad Guru' ( "teacher of the entire world" ).

I have a great respect for the Hindu beliefs and traditions, as well as the other great world faiths, but am saddened by those extraneous to these time-honoured beliefs, traditions, and cultures, who personalize these faiths purposely for commercialization.

Peter, I'm sorry for having omitted [ CENSORED! ] a portion of your entry. Chris Butler's privacy deserves to be respected. His private life ( like anyone else ) is his own business, and has no interest value in this forum. Many thanks for your participation in the forum, and I hope that we'll hear from you again.

Rev. Father Maximiadis.

8 August, 2006.

"If you can't stand the heat,
get out of the kitchen"

Harry Vaughan, Time, 28 April, 1952.

On 16 February 2007, a forum participant, with a pretended identity, posted disapprovals of comments I made about Jagad Guru's teachings on this web site. Today, three weeks later ( 10 March ), I received an email requesting removal of the participant's posting. On this occasion I have acceded to this request, but in future I will not be so obliging, as I'm not prepared to waste my time responding to entries to be uploaded to my server; and downloaded three weeks later; because of a participant's dissatisfaction with my response to their posting. If other participants intending to participant in this forum, please do not do so if you're inclined to take offence at sagacious debate.

The inconvenient removal of this particular participant's posting does not include the removal of my own response to the posting in question. My response to that posting ( v.i. ) remains unchanged except for omitting the assumed name, of the participant, in brackets.

Rev. Father Maximiadis.

11 March, 2007.

Thank you ( omitted ) for your entry into the forum. I should like to commence responding to your entry by first asking you to explain what you mean by saying: "everything has answers". I understand that the accumulative pool of human knowledge might provide 'answers' to many mundane and philosophical questions, but your suggestion that: "everything has answers" sounds grossly disproportionate to the relative world. However, you might like to explain precisely what you mean.

I have, in the forefront of you suggestion, 'given myself' the "chance to listen to his ( Jagad Guru ) teachings" with an "open mind ... and comment after" ( sic ) in a registered letter ( 7 November, 2000 ), and on several other occasions on www.fathershomepage.com et al. In the ensuing six-year period Jagad Guru has not responded with a courtesy letter of having received same. So your "very ridiculous and rude" description of me has been sorely misplaced. And your analogy between a "very strong faith" and a "very hard shell" is irrelevant to me, and the material I have written, and posted on www.fathershomepage.com. A perusal of all my articles will evince a reasonable level of objectivity, and logical consistency - with evidential supports when necessary - which are quite apart from the perspective of a "very strong faith" that concerns 'spiritual apprehension of divine truth; free from verification. If you had viewed the many pages other than the 'Forum', and the 'Open Letters' page, you would have discovered nothing of the "very ridiculous and rude".

Your comment: "How could you say things like that if you only had read a part of a book". ( omitted ), I did not read "a part of a book", I read it in toto, and furthermore did a comparative research of it, and the Bhagavad-Gita for evidential support for Jagad Guru's teachings - particularly on the themes of 'metempsychosis', and 'Karma' - which produced not even a fraction of evidence to support Jagad Guru's article. If you disagree with my comments, in my articles, or on the this forum, stop growling behind anonymity, and come out and start barking. Rise to the occasion, on specific points relative to my arguments, rather than making glib, and tiresome mud-slinging trivial objections.

You suggest that: 'arguing over the internet is nonsense', yet you contradict your own suggestion by having posted an item on this forum, have you engaged in a nonsensical exercise? You also suggested that 'only few people will be able to read this site'. Would you consider 17,979 [ counter reading on 19/2/2007 ] visitors, to this site, as "only ( a ) few people"? Have you also considered that "few people" posting 'arguments', 'rebuttals' ecc., are, for the most part, like yourself, champions of the unsubstantial teachings of Jagad Guru.

( omitted ), where on www.fathershomepage.com can you quote from, to support your suggestion that I'm allegedly (1) "very ridiculous and rude" (2) for "end(ing) with conclusions", (3) based upon my "own mental speculations", and for allegedly (4) "degrading other people's beliefs and do nothing but criticize jagad Guru", and having done so "through the use of words". ( omitted ), you yourself "through the use of words" put forth your opinions on this forum. Have you any suggestions as to how I, or anybody else, can do likewise without "...the use of words"? If you can indicate a precise instance, on www.fathershomepage.com where I have made a statement based upon conjecture or speculation, please post it on this forum for discussion.

Another of your comments suggest: "Said he respects hindu beliefs...where is that respect". I answer your question with a question: 'Where on www.fathershomepage.com have I demonstrated a disrespect towards the beliefs, traditions, or text of 'Sanatana Dharma'? I invite you to post, not generalizations, but specific instances of my alleged disrespect of 'Sanatana Dharma' on this forum.

( omitted ) I do appreciate your kind comments suggesting that I'm "an intellectual, a philosopher", but with all due respect I'm neither. I'm merely a priest with an enquiring mind, nothing more nor less.

You say: "I have read this site for about twice and I don't understand why somebody would care alot debating over the internet with someone who is very busy enough to spread the teachings of God Himself and also give pressumptions and conditions to the person who wouldn't be able to reply?" ( sic ). Thank you for visiting our site and viewing the 'Open Letters', and 'Forum' pages. ( omitted ) I do care about considering different sides of an issue, that's why the forum was constructed, not made particularly to "...criticize Jagad Guru's teachings", but to provide people like yourself, a platform for engaging in dialogue, to debate on various aspects of topics. If "...someone who is very busy ... spread(ing) the teachings of God Himself", and "...would(n't) care alot debating over the internet" could try using the mail service, that is to say, if that "someone" was seriously "...spread(ing) the teachings of God Himself". Six years would have been more than ample time to "...be able to reply"; wouldn't you agree?

( omitted ), you suggest that my articles contain "bad ideas and leave their ( presumable visitors ) minds assuming whatever they have come out with their mental speculations". I can't be responsible for you judging my ideas as "bad" ( whatever that is suppose to mean ), nor others "speculations". Everyone is free to speculate on anything they wish, but whether or not such speculations are based on facts or fanciful thinking is quite another matter. You ask me "what are you trying to do? make a history over the internet or brainwash? No, I'm not trying to "make history over the internet". This would involve documenting an ongoing description of significant events. Perhaps your understanding of the meaning of 'history' differs from mine. You suggest that: "Followers of the Vedic Philosophy have their own system, principles and regulations that one must understand before making and pressumptions" ( sic ). I would suggest that you, and other zealous supporters of Jagad Guru's pseudo-Sanatana Dharma cult, would understand this "before making and pressumptions" ( sic )about Christians.

You also suggest that: "God's teaching is not about intellect, it's the knowledge that you have which transcends everything". Firstly, if one omits "intellect" from God's teaching, one would be excluding the God given faculty of human reasoning. Therefore, how is one to determine "pure knowledge" i.e., 'theoretical or practical understanding from experience' without the faculty of human reasoning? Perhaps you could enlighten our visitors, and I myself, by sharing "the knowledge [italics mine] that you have which transcends everything", and the immortal immaterial "pure soul".

Thank you ( omitted ) for your input into this forum, and we hope to hear from you again.

Rev. Father Maximiadis.

20 February, 2007.

"... scrap the forum and
spare us the agony".
george, this is a crappy forum i have ever seen! its amaturish and boring and to much of your father and, not enough of visitors. check out rick ross forum its loaded with tons of imfo. You have to much of your fathers ravings like butlers morons. your fathers losing it! and butlers side kicks have already lost it! thats if they have ever had it!!! do us a favor pull him him into line or retire him and scrap butlers cronies if not scrap the forum and spare us the agony. weared brisbane march 15 2007

'too much input from me
& not enough from visitors'
'Wearied' visitor, Thank you for your sprightly and candid entry into the forum. George is out of the country at present, so I'll be responding to your entry. I'm sorry to hear that the forum is not to your satisfaction. It is far from what we'd like it to be, but with helpful criticism from visitors, like yourself, we hope to eventually improve its format to make it an interesting and entertaining space rather that an "agonizing" one. However, with a hand-to-mouth budget we have to manage with what we have.

I agree with your suggestion that there is 'too much input from me and not enough from visitors'. However, I hope that imbalance will correct itself as more serious participators become involved.

Unfortunately, a sizeable percent of participators, from a particular group, have been targeting the forum with hypercritical and irrelevant postings, primarily concerned with assumptions about me, rather than taking on the subject matters in question. The puerile, meagrely character of their entries wouldn't go unnoticed even by the most casual observers. But George, and I, believe that the Forum ought to be an open space for all to have their say, no matter if we agree or disagree, with what the participators have to say. The only exception is, of course, that we delete expletives and taboo word usages, and censor derogatory comments regarding matters of others private lives.

In conclusion, I agree with your comment on Rick Ross' Forum regarding it being "loaded with tons of imfo" (sic.) The New Jersey based 'Ross Institute', could very well be the largest electronic information centre in the western hemisphere; providing a wealth of information on the ever emerging dangerous cults. It provides an invaluable service to the internet community, an admirable undertaking second to none. There is no comparison with the Ross Institute web site and ours. Ours is only a personal web site; nothing more nor less.

Thank you for visiting our web site, and offering your suggestions to the Forum, and we hope that you'll keep in contact.

Rev. Father Maximiadis.

16 March, 2007.

"...reading is defferent
from understanding..."
more talk and less understanding we'er doing it again...on what we did to "Jesus"... we're reading his books without understanding..have anyone ever heard the phrase "reading is defferent from understanding...is time repeating itself again...please think on what we done when Jesus said he was the "Massaih" Believer Philipines 16 March, 2007

"...Science of Identity
  ...a dangerous   and
abusive cult..."
Maybe you will be interested in my website www.cultofbutler.com . I am a former member of Science of Identity and know it is a dangerous and abusive cult. If there is anyone that would like to see this exposed I would like to communicate further. The section So Called Christians may be of particular interest. We have posted your letter and link so that it can be seen that Siddhaswarupananda has declined to answer. Our site has very good traffic and can get you some attention. Please advise if this is not ok. We simply try to keep everything that we can. We are the first serious dedicated opposition. Please consider opposing SoI with us. Regards Cara Australia 17 March, 2007

Thank you Cara for your posting for the Forum. I had a most enjoyable tour of your site, and discovered it to be very worthwhile with copious volumes of information, and I'm sure other visitors will likewise. I wish you, and your web site www.cultofbutler.com all the very best wishes for a extensive, and successful presence on the internet.

Rev. Father Maximiadis.

17 March, 2007.

"... God likes to sit there and
throw people in the fire" (sic )
                                                   Chris Butler, Oleo Public Access TV, 2004 <