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-disantTeacher 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 résistanceso-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
manydiscrepancies 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..."
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
I attempted to obtain responses, from Chris Butler
( Jagud Guru ), regarding his (1) Recurrent vilification
of Christians, (2) Superinducing generic philosophical
questions, concerning the doctrine of metempsychosis and
karmic law upon Christian doctrines, and (3) fabrication of
Jesus words to support the Hindu doctrine of 'karma', and
'metempsychosis', and other various assumptions v.i.,
he has put forth. The first attempt was in the form of a
registered letter ( 7 November 2000 ), followed by two other
attempts ( 8 September and 24 October 2005 ) on the
'open-letters', and 'forum' sections of www.fathershomepage.com.
Chris Butler, during the ample period of six years, has not
demonstrated any courteous behaviour of, at least, acknowledgement
of having received my letter; or invitations. Butler speaks of
"... find(ing) light and friendship ..." ( Istagosthi Web Site,
20 Ocober 2003 ), whilst his non-existent response to communications,
demonstrate an appalling level of the "light and friendship" of which
he glibly comments, on its supposed absence, particularly of those
who hold different beliefs and traditions that are dissimilar to
his own.
Recently I viewed Chris Butler's Video Show titled 'Jagud Guru Speaks: Is God
Really Lovable?' ( Oleo Public Access TV, 2004 ). This very revealing video can
be viewed at www.cultofbutler.com. He
appeared on the show with a meagrely audience, presumably his ultra-accommodating
inner circle of zealous enthusiasts. If it had not been for the seriousness of the
subject matters in question, viz.,God and
Christians, Butler could very well have been mistaken for a buffoon
guffing on the 'Comedy channel'. He revelled with his audience at the expense of
both God, and Christians. At the end of each ridicule, and sarcasm, Butler made
against God ( and of course, his favourite so-called Christians
scoffs ), his obsequious inner circle provided timely feigned laughter. Butler's
ostentatious performance was beyond ridiculous.
In the 'Video Show', Butler flippantly asked questions, and provided his own
answers about God: ... what's he look like? He provided an
answer: ...faceless big dude! ( he and his audience laughed ). He
then said: God is as ...cold as ice OK! and is as ...hard as
concrete. He also suggested that ... God likes to sit there and
throw people in the fire ... like a sadist. Butler's satirizing, and
characterizing God as a cold, sadist(ic), big
dude was unadulterated profanity at its worst.
Butler's relentless ongoing anti-Chistian campaign, against what he tediously
designates: so-called Christians, is a violation of the most
quintessential aspect of human conscience, and a purposeful assault against all
Christians. Butler, in his Video Show, crossed the boundary from the natural
and preternatural into the realm of the Supernatural, by virtue of
his denigratory glib rhetoric against God. He is now treading on the precarious
thin ice of blasphemy. This is loathsome, contemptuous, and morally reprehensible.
Butler is, in my opinion, demonstrating recklessness, and irresponsibility
towards those of his followers who have entrusted their souls in his care.
In a pluralistic society anyone is free to legally establish a group to follow
whatever beliefs or traditions they wish. I believe in the democratic principal
that any group, particularly minority groups, are entitled to grow and prosper
within the laws of the prevailing trends, and opinions of the particular society
in which they exist. However, I do not believe that any group is entitled to
disregard other's jurisdictions by poaching. Any group is entitled to grow, but
not at the expense, or vilification, of other groups.
I refer to my letter ( 7 November 2000 ), to Chris
Butler inviting him to respond to my three questions (vs.) I raised in
response to comments he made in his booklet titled: 'Understanding Karma'
(Published by Science of Identity Foundation, Sine loco, 1995). Additionally I
invited him to debate these issues on this Forum, on two occasions ( 8 September
and 24 October 2005 ). I have been waiting for a response for the past six
years; but to no avail. In these circumstances, I can say that Butler's
unwillingness to engage in an open debate with me, might prove too intellectually
challenging. If he was, ipso facto, sufficiently schooled in his own
beliefs, rather than his incessant vilification of Christians, he would be quite
capable of engaging in a debate, on this forum; particularly with an assumed
epithet Jagad Guru ( teacher of the entire world ).
In conclusion, Butler's aversion to debate with me is, quite clearly, an
acknowledgent of his own inadequateness to support any of his propositions,
and a disclosure to his followers of the absense of any solidity, reality, or
factual basis to their soi-disant Jagad Guru teachings. And that the sum
total of my theses ( as outlined in my letter and on this forum ), are ipso
facto, irrefutable.
Rev. Father Maximiadis.
24 March, 2007.
"... Jesus Christ was directly and
indirectly teaching the reality of
reincarnation" (sic.)
Chris Butler
This posting will hopefully serve several purposes. Firstly, to call into
question further assumptions, made by Chris Butler, that "...the New
Testament is extremely limited ... "there is a very great possibility that
he ( Jesus ) did teach more in-depth signs in Bhakti-yoga, the signs
of Astanga-yoga" and Kundalini-yoga even, Mystic-yoga", and
" ... that Jesus Christ was directly and indirectly teaching the reality of
reincarnation" ( sic ). Secondly, to publish my confutations, with
evidential supports from the Gospels themselves, and the historic records, to
evince the fallaciousness of his assumptions. And for he himself to accept, yet
another of my invitations, to come forward and uphold his assumptions with
evidential supports, on this forum, to disprove the veracity of my rebuttals;
before his own followers, visitors to this forum, and I myself.
Three idiosyncrasies, of Butler's lectures, are worthy of note. Firstly, one
has to acknowledge that, he himself, is an alluring gentlemanly, charismatic
figure. His lectures, and booklets, reflect a youthful impetuous enthusiasm with
a patent cavalier style, accompanied with empty rhetoric, and profuse quantities
of fancifulness. His themes are absent of any theoretical base, historical data,
or evidential supports. Jesus Christ and His Church are merely means by which
he promotes his westernized style of Hinduism. His lectures are customized to
appeal primarily to Christian audiences. He may very well disseminate with an
overzealous proselytizing method - equivocating, misquoting, incessant
falsification of Biblical text - to an incautious impressionable audience or
readership; but it wont have any Hinduizing effect upon discerning Christians.
His teachings have an ambiguous streak in that they are, to all intents and
purposes, anti-Christian, and constantly berating the Christian Church, and
followers of Jesus, as is his wont to do, yet on the other hand courting his
audience from an hypercritical standpoint against Christian beliefs and doctrines.
Secondly, Butler is self-proclaimed "teacher of the entire world" = "Jagud Guru".
A similar title: "World-teacher", was ascribed to Jiddu Krishnamurti ( 1895–1986 )
by Annie Besant ( 1847 - 1933 ), but Krishnamurti renounced it in 1929. There are
self-evident dissimilarities between Krishnamurti's self-effacement and
Butler's excessive self-estimation. Butler - a non-Christian - teaching
Christian doctrine ( of sorts ), to Christians is beyond ridiculous. Exactly from
whom, and where, did he obtained his authority? From a burning bush at Mount Sinai?
or during a 'vision' on the Damascus Road? From the Apostolic Succession of the
historic Church? or from within one of the Protestant traditions? Does Butler have
the fortitude of a "teacher of the entire world", and moral authority to 'teach'
and pass judgent on Christians?
Does Butler, "teacher of the entire world", 'teach' Hinduism's polytheism with
its manifold variety of deities, e.g., Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, et alii? Does he
surreptitiously 'teach', under the guise of monotheism, falsehoods and
destructive heresies?
Εγενοντο
δε
και
ψευδοπροφηται
εν
τω
λαω
ως
και
εν
υμιν
εσονται
ψευδοδιδασ-
καλοι,
οιτινες
παρεισαξουσιν
αιρεσεις
απω-
λειας
και
τον
αγορασαντα
αυτους
δεσποτην
αρνουμενοι.
επαγοντες
εαυτοις
ταχινην
απωλειαν,
και
πολλοι
εξακολουθησουσιν
αυτων
ταις
ασελγειαις
δι
ους
η
οδος
της
αληθειας
βλασπημηθησεται,
και
εν
πλεον-
εξια
πλαστοις
λογοις
υμας
εμπορευσονται,
οις
το
κριμα
εκπαλαι
ουκ
αργει
και
η
απω-
λεια
αυτων
ου
νυσταζει.
Πετρυ Β 2:1-3 (GNT)
But there were also false prophets among the
people, even as there will be false teachers
among you, who will secretly bring in destruc-
tive heresies, even denying the Lord who
brought them, and bring on themselves swift
destruction. And many will follow their destruc-
tive ways, because of whom; the way of truth
will be blasphemed. By covetousness they will
exploit you with deceptive words; for a long
time their judgment has not been idle, and
their destruction does not slumber.
2 Peter 2:1-3 (NKJV)
Whatsoever the case may be, Butler assumes an excessive moral and judgemental
'authority', particularly regarding Christians, whom oftentimes are unequivocally,
and superciliously berated with repetitious and monotonous regularity. He has a
self-evident incessant 'anti-Christian-fixation'. He won't, or can't, leave
Christians alone. He is a soi-disant 'authority' on Christians absent of
any rationale. He glibly refers to Jesus' followers with his favourite catchphrase:
"so-called Christians" Are we to assume that 2,100 million Christians,
q.e., thirty-three percent of the population of the major world religions
( vid., 'Major Religious Groups' 2007, Wikipedia ) are, according to Butler,
"so-called Christians"? Would he have also considered Jesus' Apostles,
and the Fathers of the Patristic Age ( 1st to 8th cent ( q.v. ) ), and
the 2,565 canonized Saints ( vid., 'Butler's Lives of the Saints', H.
Thurston, S.J., D. Attwater. rev. ed. vol. 1, P.v. ) as so-called Christians"?
Does he affix his "so-called" label on those of the other world faiths?
e.g., "so-called Buddhists", "so-called Muslims", or "so-called Hindus"
( "so-called Krsna devotees" )? or is this label reserved solely for Christians?
Thirdly, his discourses, and writings, for the most part are absent of any
logical, or rational consistency. His discourses and writings exhibit a
transparent unfamiliarity, or rather a very conspicuous absence, of even the
most fundamental principals of historic method. They are superficial and erratic.
His teachings are perplexing, absent of even the most basics of any of the various
sub-disciplines of theology, e.g., soteriological understanding of Jesus'
universal 'saving work', or any of the eschatological elements in Jesus' thirty-two
Parables. Furthermore, his pseudo-exegesis of the New Testament are naïve, and
totally irrelevant to both Jesus' 'words' and 'works'. And finally, he exhibits
a transparent ignorance of ecclesiasticism, the Apostolic tradition; and the
theological significance of Christian dogma.
Furthermore, his discourses and booklets are puerilely stylized to appeal principally,
to an unwary readership and audience. He endeavours to Hinduize Jesus Christ Himself,
and the New Testament, qn., will Muhammad and the Qur'an be next?
He promotes his own individualized form of orientalism, utilizing abbreviated select
elements extrapolated from the various religious systems, viz., Hinduism
Sanatana Dharma ( 4,000BC q.v. ) from the Indian sub-continent,
Buddhism Buddha-Dhamma ( 400BC ) from Thailand, Burma, Sri Lanka, et
alibi. These religions ( or ethical movements q.l. ) include 'reincarnation'
( 'metempsychosis' ), 'worship of a variety of gods' ( 'polytheism' ), and the
bonds of 'karma' [ Karma is associated with the belief of 'reincarnation', an
oriental notion to explain inequalities of life. This is, as I have said time and
again, not a Christian doctrine. The notion of karma is unique to Hinduism,
and Buddhism, and has been rejected by Judaeo-Christian and Islamic scholars
[ vid., St. Augustine "De Moribus Manichaeorum" ], et al. ].
He has, since the late seventies, retained his incessant mingling of selected
elements of these two world faiths, which by detailed analysis, their antithetical
constituent parts belong to neither ( na iti, na iti ), but clearly belong
in a theological and doctrinal no man's land.
I have made a transcript ( v.i., ) in toto, of one of Butler's discourses,
followed by my analyses ( and rebuttal ); for reader's perusal. For verification
of my transcript, the discourse can be viewed ( and heard ) at
www.cultofbutler.com. I have included this
transcript, followed by my rebuttal, in the following paragraphs:
"Everything that Jesus Christ taught ... that can be actually be contained in
thirty pages, you tell me, is that possible, that he engages in activities and
gave the amount of instructions to the equivalent of ... to ... one of my two
hour lecture ... and that was his whole ministry ... who can believe that!
Therefore, we can conclude, that the information that is contained in what we
call the New Testament is extremely limited, partial, it's not anywhere near
everything that Jesus Christ, huh, taught or did. And also in the New Testament
itself you'll find that everything ... huh ... all the teachings of the Lord are
not contained in this book. So, we'll just leave it there, because ... we do not
know what Jesus taught that is not in there and I'm not going to engage in
speculation ... which many people try to do they try to speculate, "Well, we
think Jesus taught this, we think that Jesus taught that" We're not going to
bother with that, all we know is that, huh, there is a very great possibility
that he did teach more in-depth signs in Bhakti-yoga, the signs of Astanga-yoga
for that matter, for the Kundalini-yoga even, Mystic-yoga, we don't know,
we can speculate all we want, and the teachings of reincarnation. Now, let's
just ... huh ... look at a few things that ... huh ... was said to Jesus Christ
that are contained in this small little book and ... huh ... which will help us
appreciate ... huh ... that Jesus Christ was directly and indirectly teaching
the reality of reincarnation" ( sic ).
In the above transcript Butler asks: '... is that possible ... that everything
that Jesus taught, his activities and instructions, can be contained in thirty
pages?' I'm bemused as to the particular "thirty pages" in which Jesus' teachings
and works are, according to Butler, supposedly contained. And his temerity in
comparing the equivalent "amount" of Jesus' "instructions" to one of his "two
hour lecture(s)". He emphasizes on the unknown factors, or rather the commonly
designated 'silent years', of Jesus' "activities", "instructions", and 'teachings';
in the New Testament material. He diminishes what is actually contained in the
New Testament by depicting it as "...extremely limited, partial". He assumes a
self-given right to demand additional New Testament information. He is, quite
clearly, attempting to capitalize on the New Testament quietude, of the so-called
'silent years', in which to interpolate his version of Hindu beliefs and doctrines
into Christianity.
The migration of one religion - its beliefs, teachings, dogmas and traditions -
into another, might, in Butler's opinion, and in the opinion of an unwary audience,
seem plausible by the strength of a few generalized comparative parallels. However,
students of comparative cultural traditions of various socio-ethnological groups,
and their constituent theological and philosophical belief systems, would recognize
the intellectual inflexibilities of encumbered parallels. For example, Hinduism's
polytheism with its manifold variety of deities, e.g.,Brahma,Vishnu,Shiva, et alii, and Christian monotheism, a belief
in one personal and transcendent God.
Hinduism has an hereditary caste system ( Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, and
Shudra ), that supports the divisions of social grades including the
pariahs ( Harijan ), which, although outlawed under the Offenses
Act (1955), still persists in India today. There are the complex issues concerning
attitudinal changes of family life, sexual morality, and the role of women
participating in the socio-political spheres of life. The Hindu division of the
social strata system has no parallel with the egalitarianism of Christianity
( Matthew 7:1-12 ).
These, amongst others, are the parallels, of which, Butler remains silent in his
openly aggressive proselytizing activities. His discourses, and booklets, are void
of even the faintest understanding of the unique Christian characteristics, absent
in Hinduism, and the other world faiths, e.g., the concept of the Deity and
human identity, and the foremost status of Christian ethics. Formal attempts at
bridging the gap between Christianity and Hinduism, following the Second Vatican
Council ( Session II, 17 May 1964, or, Session IV, 28 October 1965 ),
were unsuccessful, partly due to the conservativeness of Hindu culture ( vide.,
History of the Christian Church, H. Jedin, edit. Vol. X, 1981. p. 768 ).
Notwithstanding Butler's fanciful rhetoric, the stark reality is, Hinduism and
Christianity are entirely apart. The Judaeo-Christian
God is monotheistic, exclusivistic, and will 'have no other gods before Him'
( "ουκ
εσονται
σοι
θεοι
ετεροι
πλην
εμομ."
Ex. 20:3. cf. 26:6, 35:15 ).
The Decalogue is quite clear, it allows no 'other gods', whether it be the gods
of Israel's Near Eastern neighbours ( Ashtaroth ( I Chr. 11:44 ), Baal-Berith
( Judg. 9:4. ), et cetera)), or the gods of the Indian subcontinent ( Brahma,
Vishnu, Shiva, et cetera ). The narrative of God's instruction, to Jacob,
to clear the altar ( first at the Shechem shrine, and later at Beth-el ) is an
unmistakable indication that polytheism and monotheism are, quite clearly,
a contradiction in terms, and like oil and water, don't mix.
ειπεν
δε
Ιακωβ
τω
οικω
αυτου
και
πασιν
τοις
μετ
αυτου
Αρατε
τους
Θεους
τους
αλλοτριους
τους
μεθ
υμων
εκ
μεσου
υμων
και
καθαρισασθε
και
αλ-
λαξατε
τας
στολας
υμων.
Γενεσις 35:2
So Jacob said to his household and to
all who were with him, "Put away the
foreign gods that are among you, and
purify yourselves, and change your
garments".
Genesis 35:2 ( NKJV )
Obviously Butler hasn't sought serious Christian replies to his questions, from
the vast resources of Christian literature, or from any of the Christian clergy,
but rather quotes Christians ( absent of any reference ) as supposedly saying:
"...we do not know what Jesus taught that is not in there". This
astonishing quote, of a sorts, automatically prompts the question: 'how would
anyone be expected to know what isn't there?'
Apparently he is unaware that Christians from their early catechetical education
are taught of the 18 ( or 19 ) so-called 'silent years' between the event of the
lost Boy Jesus ( age 11 or 12 ) at the Temple in the year 1 or 2 ( q.v. ),
( Luke 2:41-52 ), and His Baptism ( age 30 or 33 ) in year 19 or 21 ( q.v. )
( Luke 3:21,22 ). These particular 18-years are not as 'silent', as popularly
supposed, when considering the historical factors regarding Jesus's background,
which would have influenced the spiritual, and psychological growth that moulded
the character and personality of Jesus.
For example, Palestine, in Jesus' time, was under the rule of the Imperator,
and Princeps, Caesar Augustus ( Octavin ) 27BC - 14AD, and Tiberius Julius Caesar
Augustus 14-37AD. Rome maintained a repressive form of government ( vid.
Mark 13:5-6, Acts 5:36-37 ) accompanied with an excessive taxation system, that
suppressed any hope of future economic growth. There existed a sensitive
political and religious atmosphere which included: Judaism ( elect people of
the 'Torah' and Monotheism ), Sadducees ( who maintained the status quo.
vid. John 11:50 ), Pharisees ( who believed in bridging the Torah with
contemporary society ), Essenes, an ascetic order ( perhaps related to the
Qumran sectarians ); who were situated at Qumran from c. 200BC -
c. 200AD ), and the antithetical Zealots ( a nucleus of fanatical
revolutionaries who, from the time of Pompey onward to the conclusion of Great
War ( 67 - 70AD ), sought to overthrow the Roman occupation )), the Grand
Sanhedrin ( formerly gerousia, was the ecclesiastical Star Chamber,
under the control of Rome to maintain the Pax Romana in the Transjordan ).
Notwithstanding these difficult, and at times volatile, circumstances, the
continuity and maintenance of established family ties, clans, tribes, traditional
social customs, secular and religious education ( throughout the Synagogal
network ) and observances ( e.g.,Pesach , Bar Mitzvah );
were upheld. These were the historic circumstances, in Jesus day, from which we
can extrapolate to understand those not so "silent years".
Those were the religious and political constituent elements that formed the social
fabric - the known historical data - in which Jesus' pre-conditioned psychological
and spiritual reflexes were formed. This is ample information for which to
rationalize the eighteen not so "silent years", but more importantly we have the
'known' accounts of Jesus' 'words', and 'works' as recorded in the Gospel material
without having to delve into those 18-years. The historic data speaks for itself
without any of Butler's fanciful pseudo-Hindu embellishments. Christians have
spoken for themselves, for almost 2000-years, without the intrusive unschooled
Butler's assumptions interpolating historical data and the Gospels. If those
"silent years" were of paramount importance to Jesus' 'works' and 'words', His
Apostles would have recorded them in the New Testament material. Butler may write,
or say, any fanciful things he wishes, as he has done many a time, but they will
be based solely upon unadulterated conjecture.
Butler characterizes "many people", presumably Christians, as having an
intellectual ineptitude to provide an explanatory understanding of Jesus' teachings.
He speaks on behalf of "many people" by quoting them as saying: "Well, we think
Jesus taught this, we think that Jesus taught that". Would he substantiate,
what "many people" allegedly said, by providing the source, from where he
obtained the quotation, and the name ( or names ) of who supposedly said it, to
verify the veracity of his quotation. Christians aren't reliant on a
soi-disant guru to teach them what Jesus "taught" when they have the
Holy Bible supported by an almost 2000-year Catholic Apostolic Church of the
East and West, its literary ( and oral ) Teaching and Tradition, and more
recently, from circa 14th and 17th cents; the Protestant Churches.
A cursory scanning of the New Testament would reveal that the immensity of
"everything" that Jesus taught, and did, could not be accommodated into
either Butler's "thirty pages" nor his "two hour lecture(s)".
Furthermore, Butler's proposition verges on the preposterous even if only considering
the five most conspicuous stages of Jesus' life, viz His Nativity
( Matt. 1:18-25 ) 11 - 9 BC, His encounter with John the Baptist ( Lk.
3:21,22 ) in the Jordan valley; in year 19 or 21 ( q.v. ); His 2-year +
( q.v. ) Ministry which had begun prior to the 46th year of the
Herodian Temple in 26AD ( Jn. 2:20. cf.ibid. 1:29,35,43, 2:1,12,
and Mk.1:13; ), and His Crucifixion ( Matt. 27:33-37. Mk. 15:22-26. Lk.
23:33,34. Jn. 19:17b-27 ); in April 33, and His Resurrection 3-days after
( Mat. 28:1-8, Mk. 16:1-6, Lk. 24:1-12, Jn. 20:1-13 ).
Butler's estimation of the New Testament contents as "... extremely limited,
( and ) partial" disappears into insignificance when considering Jesus' 32
Parables ( 17 references in Matthew, 5 in Mark, and 19 in Luke ), and
thirdly, the 9 Nature Miracles ( 6 references in Matthew, 5 in Mark,
3 in Luke, and 4 in John ), and the 26 Healing Miracles ( 14 references
in Matthew, 13 in Mark, 17 in Luke, and 5 in John ) Furthermore there are
Jesus' 10 ( q.v. ) Sermons ( 3 references in Matthew, 1
in Mark, 3 in Luke, and 4 in John ). And the 3 Olivet Discourses ( Matthew,
24:4-25:46, Mark 13:3-37, and Luke 21:7-36 ). Butler has a total disregard to
understanding, insights into the spiritual, psychological and social needs for
which the Gospels were written. He flippantly refers to the New Testament as a
"small little book", and audaciously compares it to one of his "two hour
lectures". He then invalidated its contents by saying, "Who can believe
that!", and concludes by suggesting, "that the information that is contained
in what we call the New Testament is extremely limited, partial".
Even abstracted listeners to Butler's lectures would be conscious of him not
being au fait with the New Testament contents, the culture, the political
and social atmosphere of Caesar's world. He misquotes Jesus ( 'Understanding
Karma' 1995, p.6 ), and assumes quotations. Provides no evidential supports to his
lectures or writings. He has no respect for the canon of sacred Scripture, no
appreciation for its eloquence, inspiration, or even for its status as a literary
masterpiece - in Elizabethan English - nor studied it in its original language:
koine Greek. Butler's description of the Holy Bible as a mere "small little
book" would give offence to many Christians. He attempts to disparage,
and scale down the New Testament, to comply with his pseudo-Hindu assumptions,
as the heretical Marcion attempted to do to the Torah in ca. 150. Would
he describe the sacred Hindu writings, e.g., the Rig Veda, or
the Bhagavad-Gita; as a mere "small little book"?
Butler suggests: "... all the teachings of the Lord are not contained in this
book. So, we'll just leave it there, because ... I'm not going to engage in
speculation".
Butler uses the English language title "Lord" ( from the Greek
Ο κυριος in both the
Septuagint ( LXX ) and the New Testament )). When Christians use this title
referring to Jesus ( vid. Lk. 17:5-6a, Acts 9:10-11, 15, 17 ) they do so
in their respect and expression of their Christian faith. When Butler uses this
title, whom is he referring to, 'Lord Jesus Christ', or 'Lord Krsna', or
Brahman, et cetera, et cetera? Whom does Butler serve, the monotheistic
Supreme Power, and Source of all existence, as perceived in the Torah and Gospels,
or the multifarious gods from the Vedic pantheon. The answer is self-evident
in his vacillating stance between Hindusim and Christianity. He surreptitiously
promotes polytheism under the guise of Christian monotheism; this is gross
deception at its worst. The transparentness of Hindu polytheism is made quite
clear by Sri Ramakrishna ( 1836 - 1886 ): "There can really be as many Hindu
Gods as there are devotees to suit the moods, feelings, emotions and social
background of the devotees." Butler's stance would suggests that loyalty
can be fragmented to simultaneously serve the polytheistic and pantheistic belief
systems. Jesus, speaking to his disciples, suggest an entirely different view:
Ουδεις
δυναται
δυσι
κυριοις
δουλευειν
η γαρ
τον
ενα
μισησει
και
τον
ετερον
αγαπησει
η
ενος
ανθεξεται
και
του
ετερου
καταφρονησει.
ου
δυνασθε
Θεω
δουλευειν
και
μαμωνα.
Μαθθαιον 6:24. (GNT)
"No man can serve two masters; for
either he will hate the one and love
the other, or else he will be loyal to
to the one and despise the other ..."
( Matt. 6:24 ( NKJV ))
Butler's discourses and writings connotes confusion and gross contradictions.
They flaunt an unrestrained contempt of God, referring to God as a "sadist[ic]
... big dude" ( Oleo Public Access TV, 2004 ) is beyond atheism. This is sheer
blasphemy, and 'unforgivable' ( Matthew 12:31b ), only utterable by enemies
of God, and a breach of the third Commandment ( v.i. ), in the rabbinical,
modern Greek, and Reformed Church traditions, and the second Commandment in the
Roman Catholic, and Lutheran traditions.
ου λημψη
το ονομα
κυριου
του θεο
υ
σου επι
ματαιω ου
γαρ μη
καθαριση
κυριος
τον
λαμβανοντα
το ονομα
αυτου επι
ματαιω.
Εξοδος 20:7, Septuaginta (LXX).
"You shall not take the name of the
Lord your God in vain, for the Lord
will not hold him guiltless who takes
His name in vain."
Exodus 20:7. (NKJV)
Would Butler refer to Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, and their
consorts ( Saraswati, Lakshmi, kali respectively ) as "
sadist[ic] ... big dude[s]" ?
Butler, after having said: "I'm not going to engage in speculation", then
contradicts himself with further speculations: "... there is a very great
possibility that he ( Jesus ) did teach more in-depth signs in
Bhakti-yoga, the signs of Astanga-yoga for that matter, for the Kundalini-yoga even,
Mystic-yoga ..." Which Gospel, chapter, and verse, in the New Testament,
can Butler cite from to support Jesus, or His Apostles, having taught "...
Bhakti-yoga, Astanga-yoga, Kundalini-yoga, ( or ) Mystic-yoga"?
Butler, under the assumed appearance of Judaeo-Christian monotheism, disseminates,
to his followers, both a pantheistic and polytheistic philosophy, of sorts, on
the thirty-three gods ( q.v. ) - in the Vedas - from the Vedic
pantheon, viz., Atman, ( Bhagavad-Gita, 4:27 ), Brahman
( ibid. 14:26 ), also referred to as Krishna to whom sacrifices are
offered.
devan bhavayatanena te deva bhavayantu
vah parasparam bhavayantah sreyah param
avapsyatha.
The demigods, being pleased by sacrifices,
will also please you, and thus, by cooper-
ation between men and demigods, pros-
perity will reign for all.
Bhagavad-Gita 3:11" cf. 4:25 )
How then can one conceptualize these 'contractual' do ut des ( "I give
that you may give" ) sacrifices, to the demigods of the Vedic pantheon?
Christianity does not operate on 'contractual' do ut des, but out of
love, rather than duty, to the monotheistic God ( cf. Micah, 6:8 ).
ανθ
ων
εγκατελιπον
με
και
εθυμιασαν
θεοις
αλλοτριοις,
ινα
παροργισωσιν
με εν
πασιν
τοις
εργοις
τωνην
χειρων
αυτων
και
εξεκαυθη
ο
θυμος
μου εν
τω
τοπω
τουτω
και
ου
σβεσθησεται.
Παραλειπομενων Β'
xxxiv:xxv ( Septuagint, LXX )
Because they have forsaken Me and
burned incense to other gods, that
they might provoke Me to anger with
all the works of their hands. There-
fore My wrath will be poured out on
this place, and not be quenched.
2 Chronicles 34:25 ( NKJV )
Butler suggests "... that Jesus Christ was directly and indirectly teaching
the reality of reincarnation". I believe Butler's suggestion is in the realm
of fanciful thinking than in "reality".
Metempsychosis can be found nowhere in the Gospels, nor for that matter, can it
be found in the most sacred writings of Hinduism, viz. the 1017 ( or 1028 )
hymns in the: Rig Veda ( 1500 - 1000BC q.v. ). Butler, ought to
reveal, to his own followers, the historic "reality" of metempsychosis
late uncontested acceptance into Hindu dogmas, with adducible adequate grounds
for its acceptance.
The concept of metempsychosis was, in "reality", uncontestedly accepted
into Hinduism, following the appearance of the esoteric Upanishads Katha
and Shvetashvatara in verse qq.v.; between 800 to 300BC
( q.v. ), and was likewise accepted into the dogmas of Buddhism ( 500 or
400BC q.v.), and Jainism ( 700 - 500BC q.v.); subsequent to their
division.
Butler ought to consider adducing adequate grounds for metempsychosis acceptance
into his own Hindu dogma, and provide a rational, a synthesis, free from fanciful
assumptions, for an integration of these two incompatible core beliefs; viz.,
metempsychosis, and the central Christian doctrine of the Resurrection. Embedding
metempsychosis, the doctrine of Karma, and the various schools of yoga into the New
Testament, and Christian dogma, would be, if it could be, tantamount to a square
equal in space to a specified circle. Only an unwary audience would unquestioningly
accept that.
I really appreciate the postings from those particular visitors who
demonstrate their astounding level of cerebral proficiency, gained from
being under the tutorage of their "teacher of the entire world". Nevertheless, if
those visitors, would be more attentive, in their future postings, in
differentiating between topics in question, and hypercritical nit-picking
irrelevancies, it'll have a less tiresome effect on other visitors to this forum,
and not attest to the embarrassing vacantness of what they have learnt from their
"teacher of the entire world".
My postings are intended to challenge, what I consider, unsubstantiated comments,
made by Chris Butler, regarding God, the Holy Bible, Christians, and their beliefs.
I have a great respect for the other world faiths, and any comments I have made in
this posting has been for the sole purpose of contrasting the incompatibleness of
the different theological and doctrinal core positions of these religions; as the
bases of my arguments against the illogical teachings of Chris Butler.
Rev. Father Maximiadis.
1 May, 2007.
"What gives with these two?"
The way I read this you have the smart-ass padre and the
lunkhead teacher. The teacher rattles the padre, the
padre gives him a serve and the teacher stays squirreled
away in his Hawaii mansion. What gives with these two?
Philip.
Winnipeg. Can
May 4 2007
"Chris Butler is not on top of his game"
George you have a great site, very interesting web site. Your forum is different
from others I've been to. Father's postings on Chris Butler are wise and
informative. Chris Butler is avoding father like the plague, because he's not
on top of his game. What a gutless wnder! On one of his postings he said father
"would make mincemeat of his devotees in a debate". What I've seen on this forum
I'm convinced that father would make mincemeat of him as well, if he had the guts
to take father on which he obviously wont. And he wants us to believe he's a
'world teacher'! what a phony!
Terry.
Perth. W.A.
May 9 2007
"If you're an honest man,
come out and say it!"
I was a member of Butler's cult and I know from the inside workings that it's
shifty cult. Butler is an evil man, and you know that. You said that he is "an
enemy of God." Why don't you come out in the open and call a spade a spade and
write about his broken [ censored ] to [ censored ] and the broken broken
disciplic succession with Bhaktivedanta who warned him of his pseudo-sannyasi
behaviour. Father you know that he used Bhaktivedanta as a stepping stone to
achive his own ends. He is not a spiritual man, he's a greedy materialists
chasing after wealth and glory. If you're an honest man, come out and say it!
ex devotee.
Hawaii. US
May 11 2007
"Many Thanks"
Thank you "ex devotee" for your posting. I'm not aware that "Butler is an evil
man", nor anyone else for the matter of that. I have too many imperfections
of mine own ( vid. Matthew, 7:1-5 ) to be concerned with. Everything I
have written, regarding Butler, has been based upon, what I consider, his gross
misapplication, distortions and fanciful interpolations into the Holy Bible, and
Christian dogma. Furthermore, personal information regarding his private life is
off limits on this forum, and whether or not "Butler is an evil man" concerns
him and the Hindu gods he worships.
Father Maximiadis.
Australia.
1 June, 2007
"Fanciful Theology"
You can't really wake up those who are pretending to be sleeping. Science
of Identity is a business franchise in which Jagad Guru is the CEO, and the
thousands of followers are the willing victims who would die to work for free
(devotional service). He has to pretend that he believes in what he teaches;
for all I know the only people who believe that are the rank
and file. All his life all he does is hide, hide and hide; because he knows his
theology is of kindergarten stuff only people with very low IQ would fall for,
and he wouldn't stand a chance against the scrutinity of the thinking public.
He knows this, he avoided this all his life, but the problem is more and more
innocent people are decieved by this free meditation class scheme and most of
the time in a destructive cults like these it's always the the children
and families who mostly are the victims.
Belle.
USA
May 12, 2007
"Brainwashing of children"
Volumes and volumes of criticism were levelled against this pathetic guru lately,
which is unprecedented. His years and years of eluding the radar screens of cult
watchers have finally come to an end. Not one from the group has come forward to
face the surmounting criticism successfully, instead they resorted to cheap shots
like stealing Chriskcon's domain name, bullying the owner with lawsuit threats,
bodily harm, destruction of property, and false offers of concessions and amends.
They also flood the net with their own quotes spams with the malicious intent to
divert hits from chriskcon.com. The website by the way has mysteriously been put
down.
Despite these desparate and shameful acts, people still stay. The power of
brainwashing! I guess even if the world overwhelmingly disapproves, the
followers will still choose to stay. It just proves how destructive and coercive
this cult is. It takes away one's ability to think rationally.
Meanwhile they continue to churn-out hundreds and hundreds of zombie-like followers
from their boarding schools for children in the Philippines. Well since they could
hardly convert adults from a much changed society nowadays, since people are getting
more and more educated, they are focusing on these children in ensuring their survival
and longevity. I think it's about time to elevate this abuse into a social issue,
our policy-makers and watchdogs can look into, because the psychological damage that
is being done here can have a long-term effect on the lives and the future of these
children and they could be irreversible.
Unlike the adults, these children did not choose to be in this group. Either they were
born into it or were dragged in there by their brain-dead parents.
sunglider.
USA
May 12, 2007
"Many Thanks"
In the last forty-eight hours fathershomepage.com has received a total of 1061
spam items. This might, in other situations, be considered an annoying
inconvenience, but, in our unique situation, we consider this as confirmation of
the effectiveness of particular postings on the 'Forum', and 'Open Letters'
sections on our web site. We are edified, and very much obliged, by such
an enormous and enthusiastic response from those of whom our postings concern.
Father Maximiadis.
Australia.
13 May, 2007
"Child abuse"
Education is the only effective way of fighting superstitious beliefs and
human aggression. Without it one is pretty much a sitting duck in this dog-eat-dog
society we live in. For a child to be deprived of proper education it's like
sending him or her off to the wild without a spear. Our world has changed
dramatically, now we see buildings instead mountains and pave roads instead of
jungles. But deep inside, nature has pretty much stayed the same. The predators
do not just pounce on any preys, they seek those who are weak and defenseless.
It's tough enough for any human being to survive this ever-growing complicated
world let alone to prosper. For this cult to withdraw their children from proper
achools is practically summarily executing them to their deaths. It maybe ten to
twenty years down the road but there are precedents and the repercussions are
oftentimes devastating. 90% of the gurukuli children from ISKCON hardly recovered
not just for the sexual assaults but mainly for social isolation. Shame on the
boarding schools in the Philippines, they should be shut down!
Belle
USA
May 14, 2007
"...flimsy opinions and
utterings of no substance"
Chris Butler, you have been challenged time and time again by Father Maximiadis.
Your words have been dissected by him and others, and had the harsh light of day
shone on them. All I (as one of the 20,000 visits to this site) see is flimsy
opinions and utterings of no substance.
By failing to openly discuss these topics with Father, you have shown yourself
and your cult to be based on little more than empty charisma. However you clearly
have the intelligence to not poke your head up, because whilst your silence is
evidence of your fear of the truth getting out, by submitting no defence, you at
least leave room for doubt in the minds of the gullible - an interesting and
clever tactic.
I want my leader to be able to confidently and honestly defend his beliefs when
they are challenged. I want my leader to brush off a challenge to his ideas and
opinions with the facts, and with clear and open and fair discussion. I look up
to and respect people who live in truth and have nothing to fear or hide. Chris,
you have shown that you are not one of those people.
John
Melbourne Australia.
25 May, 2007
'Rumours concerning schools
in Hawaii and the Philippines'
Thank you Belle for your posting concerning 'deprivation of proper education',
'sexual assaults', and 'social isolation' of the children from the ISKCON
ashram-based gurukula schools. I assume that you are referring to the period from
1972 to 1986 ( qq.v. ). I do recall unsubstantiated rumours circulating
during that period, but considered them as being uncharacteristic of the Hare
Krishna movement.
Recently a Press release: 'Hare Krishna Sued for Child Abuse', from the Windle
Turley Law Offices ( 12 June 2000 ), came to my attention, regarding a $400
million action against ISKCON, for the plaintiffs. Turley alleged: "This
lawsuit describes the most unthinkable abuse and maltreatment of little children
which we have seen. It includes rape, sexual abuse, physical torture and
emotional terror of children as young as three years of age. . . . As a result,
a generation of ISKCON children are permanently, and many profoundly, injured."
An Associated Press report ( 12 June, 2000 ) published an announcement by the
Hare Krishna leaders: "...that they would pledge $250,000 a year to investigate
past child abuse and aid survivors".
Rumours concerning other faith-based facilities in Hawaii ( USA ), and the
Republic of the Philippines, are presently in circulation. These rumours may or
may not have any basis in reality. However, if anybody has any knowledge of
facilities operating outside the state regulative syllabuses, or programmes not
serving secular public interests, such information ought to be referred to
Secretary Margaret Spellings, United States Department of Education, Washington
DC, or the Hon. Jesli A. Lapus Secretary of the Department of Education, Republic
of the Philippines. And if anybody has any solid information - considered faits
accomplis - of criminal activities, in any facility, that can be accompanied
by evidential supports, or Affidavit, a plaintiff ought to be available to the
police for record of interview.
The American taxpayer is funding an equitable education system for both the
state and private - including ecclesiastical - schools. The federal E-rate
program aids student access to on-line education with grant-in-aid from 20 to
90%. And under the 'Individuals with Disabilities Act', services are provided,
by the state education system, to students with disabilities; in both
the state and private schools. Any schools whose core belief systems are
contrarious to the 'Individuals with Disabilities Act' or not serving secular
public interests ought to have their funding reconsided.
Father Maximiadis.
Australia.
4 June, 2007
"...uncomfortable with people
in the society; isolated in their
values; suspicious with the
status quo; and antagonistic
with the world"
For the children in the Science of Identity boarding schools in the Philippines,
there may not be any direct evidence of physical or sexual abuse; but for them
to grow with inadequate social, intellectual and technical skills - uncomfortable
with people in the society; isolated in their values; suspicious with the status
quo; and antagonistic with the world. These are worse than the abuses our social
institutions concern themselves with. I've seen families broken up when the
other parent, sibling or extended family member chose to stop believing the dogma;
the members who stayed are encouraged to shun away, demonize or condemn the
backsliders in whatever means - all are justified in the name of divine obligation.
Sad thing is, compare to the survivors of ISKCON boarding schools, this kind of
abuse on impressionable children is hard to elevate to a social issue. Where there
are no physical bruises to prove, the standards of prevention and safety are
difficult or even impossible to impose; the other sad thing is that there are no
one for these children to turn to, outside the family - not the social institutions
not even the anti-cult groups which are mostly disorganized, lacking credibility
and controversial. It is not automatic that when you're anti-cult you're
on the side of truth. It is very important for ex-cult members to know this.
It's really up to the parents and people concerned that these children in
the cult are looked after; to be always dependable in showering them with love,
compassion and protection from the dark elements of life.
