Translate blog:

Announcements

Sign up to Receive Email Updates


powered by MailChimp!

Recent Comments

Author: Deborah (Discerning the World)

Sadhu Sundar Singh – Hindu Mystic in Sheep’s Clothing

Sadhu Sundar Singh - www.vergeestelijking.nl/pictures/diverse/SadhuSoendarSingh.jpg

Sadhu Sundar Singh and His So Called Christian Exploits with Emanuel Swedenborg

I have come across quite a few ‘Christian’ websites who think that Sadhu Sundar Singh was truly a man of God.  I’ve spent hours and hours reading about his life and his beliefs and I will say this;  if someone knocks on your door dressed in a yellow robe preaching Jesus Christ, don’t open the door!!

On the surface it would appear that Sundar Singh was truly a man of God, he was ostracised by his family for ‘converting’ to Christianity after he had a vision of Jesus Christ in his bedroom, he was Baptised, he took on the life of a Sadhu, barefoot, roaming from village to village preaching and he spent many a month in prison or thrown into a well for preaching the Gospel, until one day he just vanished into thin air (not in a mystic kinda way…no he left for a trip to Tibet and was not seen again).

However, under the surface we find a man who could not let go of his Hindu background, incorporating Hindu mystic teaching and ideas with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I will now briefly analyse his life and his teachings:

“…he decided to become a sadhu, so that he could dedicate himself to the Lord Jesus. As a sadhu, he wore a yellow robe, lived on the charity of others, abandoned all possession and maintained celibacy. He was convinced that this was the best way to introduce the Gospel to his people since it was the only way which his people were accustomed to. In addition, he also wanted to be free to devote himself to the Lord.” [1]

A Sadhu is a Hindu who devotes his entire life to his religion and forsakes all the worldly pleasures.  When one becomes truly born again you will abandon ALL things that are not glorifying to God, you abandon the sin in your life.  The things you did before you were truly born again you repented of and you will not go back to them.  Sundar Singh didn’t do that, he kept the Hindu Holy Man name Sadhu and the Holy Man robes.  The only reason for this was because it was supposedly easier for him to approach people and spread the Gospel.

This does not make sense?  If he was truly Christian he would not have kept the Holy Man ‘Sadhu’ or continued to wear the robes.  This name and the robes represented the lifestyle of a Hindu Holy Man who followed after Hindu gods.  Why could he not dress like a normal Indian person.  You will see why, later…

I wrote this article on Sundar Singh because right now Todd Bentley from Freshfire Ministries, running the Lakeland Revival recently had a vision of Sundar Singh in Heaven telling him about meditation:  contemplative prayer and soaking, etc.

Todd Bentley never abandoned his worldly lifestyle either with all his metal style t-shirts, recent tattoos and piercings.  Dressing like the world to try attract the world is the excuse.

Sundar Singh’s vision of Christ:

“But with the death of his beloved mother when he was only fourteen years old, his life had changed dramatically. The young Sundar grew increasingly despairing and aggressive. Convinced that what Jesus had taught was completely wrong, he tore the Bible apart and burned it. He even threw stones at preachers and encouraged others to do likewise. His hatred of the local missionaries and Christians culminated in the public burning of a Bible which he tore apart page by page and threw into the flames.”

“Three days after he burned the Bible in front of his father, he woke up at three in the morning and went out into the moonlit courtyard for the ceremonial bath observed by devout Hindus and Sikhs before worship. He then returned to his room and knelt down, bowed his head to the ground and pleaded that God would reveal himself.  Yet nothing happened. He was thinking of throwing himself in front of the train that would pass at 5 a.m. every morning behind their house, in the hope that he would find peacefulness in his future reincarnation.”

“He repeated his prayer once again. He lifted his head and opened his eyes, and was rather surprised to see a faint cloud of light in the room…He then thought that it might be an answer to his prayer. While watching the light, he suddenly saw Jesus’ figure in the radiance. To his sheer amazement he saw not the face of any of his traditional gods, but of Jesus the Christ.”

“Jesus Christ was there in the room, shining, radiating an inexpressible joy and peace and love, looking at him with compassion and asking, “Why do you persecute me? I died for you …”[Acts 9:1-5] At that time, Sundar realised that Jesus was not dead but alive. Sundar fell on his knees before Him and experienced an astonishing peacefulness which he had never felt before. The vision disappeared, but peace and joy lingered within him.”

So what we have here is not Jesus Christ appearing to dear ol’ Sundar, but an ‘angel of light’ as an impostor of Jesus Christ.  This ‘angel of light’ said to Sundar ‘Why do you persecute me? I died for you …” and then ‘peace and joy’ lingered within him.  Sundar soon after that began a life of spreading the simple message of love and peace and rebirth through Jesus.   I still have yet to read anywhere where Sundar actually says he accepted Jesus Christ as his saviour by repentance of sin.  Why do I say that is was an ‘angel of light’ that appeared to Sundar and not Jesus Christ?  Because if it was Jesus Christ, Sundar would not have believed, preached or delved into the following:

  • He would frequently converse with the deceased for wisdom and guidance.
  • His communication with the ‘other side’ did not just stop at deceased ‘Christians’ but he conversed with dead unbelievers as well.
  • He believed that the dead could receive Christ after death:

“With regard to the doctrine of reincarnation and transmigration also, I have conversed with Swedenborg and some other Hindu saints who, after entering into the spiritual world, have accepted the Lord as the only true God and Saviour and also those who have not yet accepted Him. They all say that reincarnation is impossible . . .” [5]

  • Sundar seems to have ties with Swedenborgia – New Church (another Cult) in which Swedenborg (the visionary who established this diabolical church) also had visions very similar to Sundars.  Sorry, I should say that Sundar’s visions are very similar to Swedenborg’s. Whether Sundar had read Swedenborg’s books and then mimicked his visions we will never know.   Whatever it is, it’s fishy to say the least:

emanuel swedenborg - Sundar Singh

“. . .  I want to say that after my book on the “Visions of the Spiritual World” was published, some friend sent me a copy of “Heaven and Hell,” and I was glad to see that this wonderful man of God [Swedenborg] also had similar experiences. I should very much like to read about this seer and saint.” [6]

  • Sundar believed that all angles and demons were once men, yet contradicts himself elsewhere by making a distinction between angels and humans that they are not the same.
  • Sundar believed that those who have gone to heaven (the redeemed) can act as angels on earth.
  • Sundar conversed with Swedenborg in the spiritual realm:

“I saw him several times [in a spiritual realm] some years ago, but I did not know his earthly name. His name in the spiritual world is quite different just according to his high position or office and most beautiful character. He is exceedingly happy and always busy in helping others.”[7]

“Yes, I have talked with the venerable Swedenborg and some other saints and angels about the hells, although I am unable to explain adequately all that they told me . . .”[8]

  • Sundar went to Sweden and viewed Swedenborg’s tomb at a Cathedral:

Swedenborg Tomb / Sundar Singh - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Swedenborg%27s_grave.jpg“Sundar Singh’s second tour to the West took place in 1922. During the month of April he visited Uppsala, Sweden, where he was the guest of Archbishop Nathan Soderblom (whose contacts with, and impression of, the Sadhu I have discussed at some length elsewhere.)[3] Among other things, Soderblom took him on a sightseeing tour, in the course of which he entered Uppsala Cathedral and saw the tomb of Swedenborg. Later Soderblom was to write that Sundar Singh had been impressed by three things in the Cathedral — the shrine of Sweden’s patron saint, St. Erik; a medieval cope bearing, an embroidered picture of the birth of Christ, and Swedenborg’s tomb, “For Swedenborg like him was a visionary.”[4]

Sundar Singh on Buddhism:

“Regarding the Buddha, he said that he respected him for the strength of his intellect and the purity of his life; but in the Sadhu’s opinion he was lacking in humility and for that reason did not attain knowledge of God. Had he truly longed for God, he would have gone to the Sannyasi whom he had first met. For it is only through humility that we can know God.” [1]

Really?  Is that so.  So he respects a demonic entity for its intellect and PURITY of life and then says because it lacked humility it would never attain knowledge of God.  Oh please…you gotta be a complete twit to fall for that one!

Sundar Singh on ‘How to enter Heaven’:

“Nobody will be allowed to enter into Heaven who has not a face like Jesus Christ. That is the only ticket, otherwise we shall find ourselves out of place there. Only those who follow Him will feel at home there.” [1]

No where is this in the bible.  Not a single scripture to back this up.

Sundar Singhs ‘Universalism’ Beliefs:

“However bad and evil-living a man may be, there is in man’s nature a divine spark … this spark of the divine is never extinguished … If this divine spark or element cannot be destroyed, then we can never be hopeless for any sinner… The Creator Himself will not destroy it (man’s soul)… even though many wander and go astray in the end, they will return to Him in Whose image they have been created; for this is their final destination.” [2]

But here’s the best quote of them all by Sundar Singh himself:

“In regard to Hinduism, Sadhu Sundar Singh, the mystic and Sikh follower of Christ in the early 1900s, had an interesting personal perspective. ‘Hinduism has been digging channels,’ he wrote. “Christ is the water to flow through these channels there are many beautiful things in Hinduism; but the fullest light is from Jesus Christ”

—————

What Todd Bentley (Lakeland Revival) – Freshfire Ministries had to say:

THE GLORY CLOUD OF REVELATION & PROPHETIC MANTLES

todd bentley freshfire ministries - Sundar Singh“Is your life astonishing, filled with prophetic visions and encounters with the Lord? Are you a sign and a wonder? In a vision, Todd saw the Glory Cloud of Revelation–the cloud of Isaiah 11:1, 2 and Revelation 4:5 come upon the church body. Also in the same vision, the Lord showed him an old Punjabi saint by the name of Sundar Singh, who lived in India and evangelised throughout the world over a hundred years ago. The Holy Spirit spoke to Todd about a new release of prophetic revelation coming. In the first part of this prophetic teaching article, Todd teaches about the river of revelation available to every believer and the need for a life wholly dedicated, consecrated, and devoted to the Lord. Part 2 will examine the significance of Sundar Singh in Todd’s vision, as an example of the extraordinary relationship God wants us to have with Him, a life of devotion, humility, daily discipline, contemplative prayer, and daily soaking in, and seeking of God’s manifest presence. This style of Christian living will see us through the most violent shaking or trying times.”

AT THE MASTER’S FEET

“In this same vision, where I saw the Glory Cloud of Revelation cover believers, I also saw an old saint by the name of Sundar Singh who lived in the latter part of the 1800’s and early 1900’s in India. Then, the Holy Spirit spoke to me about this new release of prophetic revelation coming upon the church, similar to the anointing that was upon this man. It stirred my curiosity, and so I studied the life of Sundar Singh, and discovered that this early Punjabi evangelist experienced profound prophetic visions and encounters.

The Lord Himself regularly visited Sundar Singh. During these visitations, he would ask questions of the Lord and receive direct answers. At the Master’s Feet is a record of these question and answer times with the Lord. Sundar spoke to the Lord as Moses did face-to-face with God, as a friend speaks to a friend. In his writings, Singh describes his visions and experiences, but we also learn that he was humble, faithful, repentant, and spent much time in the presence of the Lord. This has come to be known as the Christian Contemplative Tradition.”

THE CHRISTIAN CONTEMPLATIVE TRADITION (LECTIO DIVINA)

“Sundar Singh spent at least two hours daily in reading the Scriptures, meditation and prayer. He would arise at 5:00 am and finish by 7:00 or 8:00 depending on what his schedule was for the day. He often spent the whole day or night in prayer. His discipline was to read one chapter of the Bible, rapidly at first reading, then to return to reread passages or verses that were more suggestive to him. These he would linger with and meditate on for as long as it was fruitful for him to do so. Next, he would enter into a period of ‘recollection’ for twenty minutes or so. This was a time of silence, in which he would allow the Lord to speak to him in some way. With his own mind and heart quieted, he opened his mind and his heart to hear what the Lord would have to say to him or just simply enjoy companionship with his Lord. Often this period of silence would extend into a deeper state called ‘contemplation’ in which he enjoyed complete rest and refreshment in the love of God.

Often during times of contemplation, he entered into experiences of ecstasy. He regarded these experiences as the same as St. Paul’s entrance into the ‘third heaven’. During his latter years, they occurred frequently, as often as ten times a month. About these experiences he said, ‘I never try to go into ecstasy; nor do I advise others to try. It is a gift to be accepted, but it should not be sought; if given, it is a pearl of great price.

Anyone who contemplates the heavenly calling of the apostle Paul and his being caught up into the third heaven, and again into Paradise, will lift up his voice to God and say: Glory to God who surely gives great gifts to men!”  —www.freshfireusa.com/

So Todd had a vision of Sundar Singh sent by God did he?  I think absolutely not and I rest my case!  But then this story is kinda old news considering that 8 months after writing this article, Todd Bentley had to slip out the back door because of a then pending separation from his wife.  Todd was having an affair with another woman during the Revival.  Todd is now divorced and seeing the new lady in his life.  Shocking!!!  And people will still try tell you after all this that ‘God was definitely at Lakeland healing everyone’.   OK, but which god?  The one that invented adultery?


 

References:
[1] sadhusundarsingh.homestead.com/files/story.htm
[ 2] Meditations on Various Aspects of the Spiritual Life in the chapter “Finally All Men Will Return to God”
[3] Cf. Sharpe, “Nathan Soderblom, Sadhu Sundar Singh and Emanuel Swedenborg,” cited in note 1 above.
[4] Soderblom, Sundar Singh’s budskap urgivet och belyst (Stockholm 1923), p. 129.
[6] Reproduced in letter from J. Goddard to the Editor of The New-Church Messenger (February 29, 1928), p. 140.
[7] Reprinted in The Helper (January 2, 1929), p. 5.
[8] 1bid.
[5] 1bid., p. 217.
Elijah List:  www.elijahlist.com/words/display_word/1400 , June 21 2006
Elijah List:  www.elijahlist.com/words/display_word/4206, June 22 2006
Freshfire:  www.freshfire.ca/index.php?Act=read&status=teaching&Id=143&pid=954, June 21 2006
Freshfire:  www.freshfire.ca/teaching_details.php?Id=142, June 20 2006
Links In A Golden Chain: © Copyright 1996, by Kathryn Lindskoog
www.consumingfire.com/sadhu.htm
At the Master’s Feet, Sundar Singh:   www.ccel.org/ccel/singh/feet.vii.i.html , 4 June 2006
www.baysidechurch.org/studia/studia.cfm?ArticleID=113&detail=1&VolumeID=18&AuthorID=41
 

74 comments to Sadhu Sundar Singh – Hindu Mystic in Sheep’s Clothing

  • Chad

    “The only reason for this was because it was supposedly easier for him to approach people and spread the Gospel”

    Sounds like someone who was willing to become all things to all people so that the gospel might be proclaimed. Sounds like the Apostle Paul.

    Did you leave your culture when you became a Christian?

  • Discerning The World

    >> Sounds like someone who was willing to become all things to all people so that the gospel might be proclaimed. Sounds like the Apostle Paul.

    This is not about culture this is about different beliefs within culture. Please supply verse(s) where Paul remained a Pharisee after he became an Apostle for Jesus Christ?

  • Clark Echols

    You wrote:

    Sundar seems to have ties with Swedenborgiana ? New Church (another Cult) in which Swedenborg (the visionary who established this diabolical church) also had visions very similar to Sundars.

    Just an FYI: Swedenborg never established a church. No organization was started until after he died. More at [edited URL]

    May the Lord continue to bless your day.

    Clark

  • Discerning The World

    Clark

    Thanks for that FYI. I’ll fix the article. This still does not mean a church was not established off Swedenborgs teachings.

  • Thomas

    Clark seems to have forgotten that Swedenborg started a whole new belief system which his followers call a new Christianity. Now, if Christianity is a movement of church goers who gather in buildings to worship the Lord, then Swedenborg’s followers must surely also gather toegether in buildings where they werve and worship their “Lord” who is not the Christian’s Lord but a new “Lord” of a “new Christianity.” Is’nt that a church? (Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedenborgian and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Church)

    Would Clark mind explaining how Jesus Christ established his church after his death, resurrection and ascencion into heaven? Does that mean He never established a church (ecclesia)? The fact that an “organiztion” (organizations do not have doctrines pertaining to matters of life and death) was only started after Swedenborg’s death does not mean that he was not instrumental in the establishment of a new church (with a belief system and certain doctrines).

  • Discerning The World

    Hi Thooomaaaaaasssssss!

    Good question… hope Clark can expand further.

  • Patrick lund

    I am from Sweden and I have NEVER seen a Swedenborg church.

    James Hudson Taylor when moving to China became a Chinese to preach for them because they wouldn’t receive him as an English man.

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Patrick

    I am from Sweden and I have NEVER seen a Swedenborg church

    Well it just shows that you need to get out and about more.

    But more importantly, what on earth has your comment got to do with the article? Ahhhh nothing. It does however tell the readers of this blog that you think Hindu mystics are biblical and that Word of Faith is Godly (as per your comment below). Oh you also think John Piper is ok as well and that everyone else is wrong exept you. http://www.discerningtheworld.com/2010/05/26/john-piper-accepting-one-mountain-with-all-the-others/#comment-15377

  • Hubert

    There is too much assumption in what you are saying about Sadhu Sundar Singh. Todd Bentley uses many other people besides sundar to justified waht he is doing. He definately had the wrong spirit. However Sadhu Sundar Singhdid leave his old lifestyle behind. Just like any one of us, when we followed Christ, we leave ourold lifestyle behind. The question here is do we penalize him because he wear an orange robe? Do we penalize the menonites becausde they wear a headdress? Do we penalize the chinese Christian because during somepart of their wedding they had to wear traditioonal chinese costume and cheong sam? Sundar was a punjabi. He minsters in the Indian subcontinent, so that type of dressing is totally acceptable. Thats their simple costume, a robe. Jesus wears a robe too. Sadhu simply means holy man in their language, hindi. but in that culture it refers to him as a teacher. They call Jesus a rabbi too? Is Jesus a Pharasee? In Laos and thailand they call pastors ‘Ajahn’, but they also call monks ‘ajahn’ too. Are they the same? In China, taiwan, singapore and malaysia,they call some one who teaches the word ‘lao shi’ but they also call taoist who teachesrs taoism ‘ lao shi’. In muslim culture, they call God ‘Allah’. But in malay and indonesia, the christians also call God ‘Allah’.Is muslim and Christian the same? Todd Bentley(whom i also believe is demon possessed himself) says he saw Sundar. That is liken to Saul seeing Samuel which is demonic in nature. so What todd bentley claims to see is not sahdu and could be a familar spirit.

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Hubert

    There are no assumptions. Sundar Singh was a Hindu Mystic. End of story.

  • Bernard

    There is a difference between wearing ordinary Indian attire and just sticking to the attire of the Hindu Sadhu’s. That is not called culture but religion. Yes, since I was born again, I have left everything that has to do with our traditional ancetral worship. I will not convert any of my loved ones by dressing up like a Sangoma. By looking like a sangoma, I will be auntheticating the practice to people instead of preaching to the then Christ.

    I think, we should realise that people must believe, unto salvation, the Word concerning Christ.

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Bernard

    There is a difference between wearing ordinary Indian attire and just sticking to the attire of the Hindu Sadhus. That is not called culture but religion.

    Exactly!

  • Sam

    Hubert is right. If Sadhu was in any way trying to mislead others into thinking that he was not a Christian, then he failed miserably because he was nevertheless greatly persecuted for being one. Apart from his connection with Swedenborg, there is not much in Sadhu’s life that is questionable as to his Christian outlook and that includes universalism.
    Doctrinal verification as a means for discernment seems to me to be yet another lie from Satan. From what I have learned, the only true children of God are those in whom an actual manifestation of the fruits of Holy Spirit are evident. If I really go by doctrines, then no one could be saved including Peter the apostle who failed to completely accept the gentile Christians together with the Jewish converts and arguably thereby demeaned the power of the blood of Christ to redeem, not to mention the personal mandate given to him concerning it, through a vision. May be he too was a false Christian after all. And while we are at it, why not falsify St. Paul who failed to see that Christ was not to return during his lifetime and only at the very end of his life does he seem to come to that conclusion as is inferable from his letters. Why accept his conversion as genuine, as well as his prophecies and visions, when clearly his greatest expectation was just wishful thinking.

    All of this is just doctrinal fun to me. Probably all of us are going to hell for not keeping the saturday Sabbath as the Seventh Day Adventists would have me believe. Or they are all going to hell as you may have me believe. Or both sides are going to hell for equating Jesus to Jehovah, as the Jehovah’s Witnesses would have me believe. Or they could be going to hell for failing to see the ‘obvious’ oneness of Jesus with Jehovah. But one thing is certain, all the non-christians are going to hell – including Sadhu’s mother concerning whom he said that if she is in hell then I will ask God to send me hell so I can be with her. Of course, the hell-bounds also include the idolatrous Catholics, the pagan orthodox Christians, the mystical charismatics, and almost all the founders of Protestant reformation such as Luther who held on to the dubious sacrament of infant baptism.

    Thus seriously looking at the doctrinal divide, I have learned to only judge by the Spirit. The aim of Christ was always to produce the fruits of Holy Spirit in men. So getting your doctrines right only satisfies the human carnality that seeks security concerning salvation through that knowledge. Knowing Christ, is the only true way to produce all the fruits in all their glory that pleases God. All other religions are either absolutely false or ‘incomplete’ as Sadhu would say. Drawing ever nearer to Christ may reveal to you the correct doctrines if you harbor any misleading ideas in your mind. Or it may not. In the end, only those who reflect the light of Jesus are right with God.

  • tooki

    I discovered Sundar Singh at a very low point in my life and his sharings brought comfort to me especially about death and life after death. I hv wondered if he really encountered Jesus but most times it felt so right. From what he wrote I understood God’s love better, i lost that fear i always had about the wrath of God and instead of forcing myself to obey i now want to obey. Thru what the Lord taught him, i now yearn to be like my Father, like Him i want to be kind and merciful and forgiving. Is this from the devil? How can Satan divide his own house this way? Sundar Singh is all about love. Satan is all about hate and evil. Can God be put in a box that says He can’t use a sadhu? Didnt mother Teresa wear a sari?

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    tooki

    >>I discovered Sundar Singh

      So you discovered Sundar Singh instead of Jesus Christ the Son of God

    >>I hv wondered if he really encountered Jesus but most times it felt so right.

      No tookie, he encountered Satan, but because ‘it felt right to you’ and you didn’t test it to the Word of God you made your decision, that it was ok. Your emotions guided your thoughts and not the Bible.

    >> From what he wrote I understood Gods love better, i lost that fear i always had about the wrath of God and instead of forcing myself to obey i now want to obey.

      Again your emotions and feelings are guiding you. You believe Sundar Singh, who says he encountered Jesus Christ, over Jesus Christ who is the Word of God (Bible) – So in effect you have chosen ANOTHER Jesus, one that rejects the Jesus Christ of the Bible.

    >> Thru what the Lord taught him, i now yearn to be like my Father, like Him i want to be kind and merciful and forgiving.

      You yearn to be like Satan? Satan who came to Sundar Singh as an Angel of Light and gave him a FALSE Gospel Message that appeals to your sinful ways.

    >> How can Satan divide his own house this way?

      He is not dividing his own how, he is adding you to it.

    >> Sundar Singh is all about love.

      So is Satan’s false message of love.

    >> Can God be put in a box that says He cant use a sadhu? Didnt mother Teresa wear a sari?

      No, God is found in the WORDS of the WORD OF GOD only and no where else. If you don’t like the WORDS found in the WORD OF GOD, then you are the one at ODDS with GOD and on Satan’s side, just like Mother Teresa who was a Roman Catholic was on Satan’s side.
  • Daniel

    “So he respects a demonic entity for its intellect and PURITY of life and then says because it lacked humility it would never attain knowledge of God. Oh pleaseyou gotta be a complete twit to fall for that one!”

    Are human beings now “demonic entities”? Buddha is not some supernatural being, it is a title for the Indian prince Siddartha Gautama, a human being.

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Daniel

    >> Are human beings now demonic entities? Buddha is not some supernatural being, it is a title for the Indian prince Siddartha Gautama, a human being.

    The Indian prince Siddartha Gautama, IS a human being POSSESSED by Buddha. Buddha, just like Krishna, and Shiva are demonic beings.

  • David Seargent

    This is not about culture this is about different beliefs within culture. Please supply verse(s) where Paul remained a Pharisee after he became an Apostle for Jesus Christ?

    Try Acts 23:6 “I am a Pharisee, a Pharasee born and bred”

  • liaqat ally

    IT IS SO SAD IN THIS DISPENSATION IN THE GREAT COMMISSION.GO YE IN ALL THE WORLD AND PREACH THIS GOSPEL OF PEACE.WHEN WE HAVE DEMON SPIRITS THAT POSSESS HUMAN BODIES ,WHO GO ABOUT CONDEMNING THE CALL OF EACH CHRISTIAN FROM THE WORLD AT LARGE WHO PREACHES THE PURE GOSPEL BY AN EXPERIENCE.I WILL REFER TO HUDSON TAYLOR FROM ENGLAND WHO DRESSED IN CHINESE COSTUME TO WIN THE LOST FOR CHRIST.WE ARE LIVING IN A TIME OF THE NEW GOSPEL 2014 WHEN THE ANGLO SAXON NATIONS OF NORTH AMERICA AND EUROPE WHO HAS VIOLATED THE HOLY SCRIPTURES IN SUPPORTING THEIR GOVERNMENT FOR INVASION AND OCCUPATION WITH MASS GENOCIDE. VERY FEW HAVE CHOOSON THE WAY OF GOD BY SCRIPTURES, A SEPARATED LIFE UNTO GOD ALONE. I AS AN INDIAN FROM SOUTH AMERICA HAS BELIEVED THE TESTIMONY OF THIS SADU. SHOW ME THE PREACHERS OF THIS ERA WHO CAN LIVE LIKE THIS, VERY FEW. THE PREACHERS LIVED LUXERY.

  • liaqat ally

    Necromancy is an abomination. Do you agree?

    Deuteronomy 18:9-12 ESV

    When you come into the land that the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not learn to follow the abominable practices of those nations. There shall not be found among you anyone who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, anyone who practices divination or tells fortunes or interprets omens, or a sorcerer or a charmer or a medium or a necromancer or one who inquires of the dead, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord. And because of these abominations the Lord your God is driving them out before you.

    An ascetic lifestyle is hardly any proof that you belong to Jesus Christ.

    Question: “What does the Bible say about necromancy?”

    Answer: Necromancy is defined as the conjuring of the spirits of the dead for purposes of magically revealing the future or influencing the course of events. In the Bible, necromancy is also called divination, sorcery and spiritism and is forbidden many times in Scripture (Leviticus 19:26; Deuteronomy 18:10; Galatians 5:19-20; Acts 19:19) as an abomination to God. It is something that the Lord speaks very strongly against and is to be avoided as much as any evil. The reason for this is twofold.

    First, necromancy is going to involve demons and opens the one who practices it to demonic attack. Satan and his demons seek to destroy us, not to impart to us truth or wisdom. We are told that our enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour (1 Peter 5:8). Second, necromancy does not rely on the Lord for information, the Lord who promises to freely give wisdom to all who ask for it (James 1:5). This is especially telling because the Lord always wants to lead us to truth and life, but demons always want to lead us to lies and serious damage.

    The idea that dead peoples spirits can be contacted for information is false. Those who attempt such contact inevitably contact demonic spirits, not the spirits of dead loved ones. Those who die go immediately to heaven or hellheaven if they believed in Jesus as Savior, and hell if they did not. There is no contact between the dead and the living. Therefore, seeking the dead is unnecessary and very dangerous.

    Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-necromancy.html#ixzz3A3A73XH7
    http://www.gotquestions.org/praying-to-the-dead.html

    Sadhu Sundar Singh preached another Jesus and NOT Jesus Christ of the Bible. If he had preached Jesus Christ of the Bible he would never have had practiced necromancy.

  • John

    We can see also this critical analysis of the visions of heaven and hell including those of the Sadhu Sundar Singh :

    http://reflexionsjesus.wordpress.com/2014/08/07/the-christian-eschatological-visions-put-into-question/

  • Hari Har

    Those who critique Sundar Singh from Christianity on the basis of his background, nationality, language, attire and culture are missing the essence of Christianity – love and Inclusion!

  • Hari Har

    His background, nationality, language, attire and culture aside. His universalism alone made him a heretic. Furthermore, necromancy (conversing with the dead like Swedenborg) is an abomination in the sight of God. Therefore it’s rather odd that you should focus on his culture and not on the things that made him a heretic.

  • Charles

    This is the first time I have read such negative comments about a man who laid down his life serving Christ, and I was compelled to reply to such biased trash that you have poured down here. Sadhu was an Indian Christian, just like me (And like him, I am proud of being one). Stop judging people on the basis of their attire. Nowhere does it say that saffron clothes are attires of Hindus. And even if they are, I think judging a person’s religious beliefs on the basis of clothes he wears, would be nothing short of Pharisaical attitude Jesus would rebuke. I believe symbols like clothes can be redeemed, and that is what Sadhu did. Your article wreaks of judgmental spirit. Its a biased piece with so many wrong assumptions. For instance, Sadhu’s argument that only those whose faces are like Christ can enter heaven are not signs of heresy, but his understanding that we become like Christ as we live for him. Sundar Singh never claimed to have contacted dead (I have no idea from where you got it. I have read his biography several times). He never planted a church (I give you that!), but not planting a church is not considered heresy I m sure! Or else, many of the evangelists should be called heretics. And just a piece of information, Sadhu never fully depended on his feelings. He always told people to believe the Word of God, in case, his experiences contradicted with the Word of God. Sadhu not only repented of his sins, including tearing of the Bible when in school, but also preached the message of repentance very clearly to his hearers (read in his books some of the best analogies he uses to explain sin and redemption). He was one of the best communicator who used ample of analogies to proclaim the message of salvation, and was lucid in his communication of the gospel. He preached to more number of people than you and I, despite the fact that we have more technological benefits than he had) I hope you read books written by him before judging him so harshly.

  • Charles wrote,

    Sundar Singh never claimed to have contacted dead (I have no idea from where you got it).

    What is your opinion of the following quote from his book “Visions of the Spiritual World. A Brief Description of the Spiritual State of Existence and the Destiny of Good and Evil Men, as Seen in Visions”

    CHAPTER II
    WHAT HAPPENS AT DEATH?

    ONE day when I was praying alone, I suddenly found myself surrounded by a great concourse of spirit beings, or I might say that as soon as my spiritual eyes were opened I found myself bowed in the presence of a considerable company of saints and angels. At first I was somewhat abashed, when I saw their bright and glorious state and compared with them my own inferior quality. But I was at once put at ease by their real sympathy and love-inspired friendliness. I had already had the experience of the peace of the presence of God in my life, but the fellowship with these saints added a new and wonderful joy to me. As we conversed together I received from them answers to my questions relating to my difficulties about many problems that puzzled me. My first inquiry was about what happens at the time of dying and about the state of the soul after death. I said, We know what happens to us between childhood and old age, but we know nothing of what happens at the time of death or beyond the gates of death. Correct information about it can be known only by those on the other side of death, after they have entered the spiritual world. Can you , I asked, give us any information about this?

    To this one of the saints answered, ” Death is like sleep. There is no pain in the passing over, except in the case of a few bodily diseases and mental conditions. As an exhausted man is overcome by deep sleep, so comes the sleep of death to man. Death comes so suddenly to many, that it is only with great difficulty that they realise that they have left the material world and entered this world of spirits.

    Who would you say were the spirits who visited him in his visions. Where did they come from?

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Charles

    Thank you Thomas for finding this quote. Charles as Thomas has asked so nicely I too ask nicely, who these spirits were that he conversed with and where did they come from?

  • Most of our critics attack us like a pack of wolves and when you answer them they run away like a litter of puppies with their tails between their legs. Charles is the the most recent example of this. He has just vanished into thin air. Remember, he’s the guy who said,

    Sundar Singh never claimed to have contacted dead (I have no idea from where you got it).

    This is a typical example of those who follow their so-called heroes and not Christ and when you prove to them they are false, their euphoric little bubbles burst and they run away.

  • Robbie

    Hit and run
    Twist and shout
    Blab and grab…

    God’s judgement will not just be on those false prophets….

    Jer 14:16 And the people to whom they prophesy shall be cast out in the streets of Jerusalem because of the famine and the sword; and they shall have none to bury them, them, their wives, nor their sons, nor their daughters: for I will pour their wickedness upon them.

  • Linda

    God’s judgment will also be upon those who call His true servants false prophets and heretics. Beware who you all condemn–you may be condemning YOURSELF!

  • Linda,

    So, you see nothing wrong in the heinous sin of consulting the dead?

    There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or daughter pass through the fire, or who uses divination, or is a soothsayer, or an augur, or a sorcerer, Or a charmer, or a medium, or a wizard, or a necromancer.(Deuteronomy 18:10-11)

    So Saul died for his transgression which he committed against the LORD, even against the word of the LORD, which he kept not, and also for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to enquire of it; And enquired not of the LORD: therefore he slew him, and turned the kingdom unto David the son of Jesse. (1 Chronicles 10:13-14).

    Though they are fully aware of Gods righteous decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them themselves but approve and applaud others who practice them. (Romans 1:32).

    Take note, the LATTER Scripture is in the New Testament, not the Old.

    Be careful, Linda, you may be condemning YOURSELF when you applaud and approve others who practice necromancy and are mediums.

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Linda

    Shame, I really feel sorry for people like yourself who have never read the bible and probably wont because they would rather have other people “tell them whats in the bible instead”. As apposed to those who read their bibles and know God’s commandment and obey God’s commandments.

    One last “shame” to go out to you….

  • Nathan

    To be fair unless you can site another instance where Sundar actually conjured the dead, I don’t believe you can technically use the above chapter from his book to argue that he practiced Necromancy. He states that “ONE day when I was praying alone, I suddenly found myself surrounded by a great concourse of spirit beings, or I might say that as soon as my spiritual eyes were opened I found myself bowed in the presence of a considerable company of saints and angels.” Certainly if he was purposely trying to conjure the dead, that would be one thing but this text does not indicate one way or the other that he was doing that. There are many instances in the Bible where while in prayer individuals have been taken in the spirit to the spirit realm. This occurs in the Old and New Testaments.

  • Nathan wrote,

    To be fair unless you can site another instance where Sundar actually conjured the dead, I dont believe you can technically use the above chapter from his book to argue that he practiced Necromancy. He states that ONE day when I was praying alone, I suddenly found myself surrounded by a great concourse of spirit beings, or I might say that as soon as my spiritual eyes were opened I found myself bowed in the presence of a considerable company of saints and angels. Certainly if he was purposely trying to conjure the dead, that would be one thing but this text does not indicate one way or the other that he was doing that. There are many instances in the Bible where while in prayer individuals have been taken in the spirit to the spirit realm. This occurs in the Old and New Testaments.

    There is no such thing that you are innocent when you do things, that are forbidden in the Bible, inadvertently, accidentally, involuntarily, unintentionally, mistakenly, or unconsciously etc. etc. etc. Sin is sin. Whoever appears before God one day won’t be able to say to Him, “As you may know, God, I wrote this book where I emphatically stated that I spoke to dead people. Now, I know you forbid this kind of thing in your Word but you cannot and may not judge me for it unless you can site another instance where I conjured the dead. I don’t believe you can technically use the chapter in my book to argue that I practiced Necromancy.”

    Nathan, do you really think God is a holy nitwit? NO, my friend, God IS HOLY, so holy that you and I cannot even comprehend His holiness. So please stop demeaning the holiness of God.

    Yes, there are instances in the Bible when people were taken in the spirit but they were never taken to speak to deceased people.

  • Nathan, if I were to read a book you wrote in which you related how you became a Christian, do I really need to read another source to make sure you are a genuine Christian? Isn’t the ONE book you wrote enough to convince me that you are a Christian?

  • Nathan

    Tom, I don’t really understand what you are getting at in your last post. Forgive me. However in the Book of Revelation, the Apostle John converses with one of the 24 Elders in Chapter 5.Would you consider him a dead person or an apparition or what? And no I do not think GOD is a Holy Nitwit. Certainly GOD knows the hearts and intentions of all men including you and I. The point in my original post was that while I agree with you that conjuring the dead is an abomination, it seems to me that a little bit more evidence should be given before you indict a man to everlasting damnation who is not here to defend himself. Simply taking a text and pretending to be the interpretive arbiter of that text without ever speaking with the author seems a little foolhardy. It is akin to the massive amount of heretical groups in our world that claim the ability to interpret the bible when all the while leading people astray. I just believe a little Grace should be given to a dead man who seemed to, based on his writings and the writings of others, furthered the Kingdom of GOD. If he was in delusion a led others into delusion GOD will certainly be Just as you desire. God Bless.

  • Nathan

    Tom, I also wanted to point out that you claim that:

    “There is no such thing that you are innocent when you do things, that are forbidden in the Bible, inadvertently, accidentally, involuntarily, unintentionally, mistakenly, or unconsciously etc. etc. etc. Sin is sin.”

    The Bible , in the Old Testament, does give conditions for people who accidentally sin. Particularly in the Torah. While GOD still saw this as sin, He commanded Moses to deal with it differently specifically because it was not purposeful.

  • Nathan,

    The fact that an offering – a blood sacrifice – was needed for accidental sins shows that it was just as wrong and dangerous as sins done knowingly by a person (Leviticus 4). There is no such thing that God ordered Moses to deal with it differently.

    Offerings for accidental sins
    1) A bull without blemish was slaughtered.
    2) The priest had to being it to the tent of meeting and slaughter it there.
    3) He had to put his hand on the bulls head and kill the bull in front of the Lord.
    4) He had to put his finger in the blood and sprinkle it seven times in front of the curtain of the Most Holy Place.
    5) He had to pour the rest of the blood at the base of the altar of burn offering.

    Look at all the other blood offerings and you will see that exactly the same procedure is followed than the one above. Does that make the accidental offering different? I don’t think so.

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Dear Nathan

    >> However in the Book of Revelation, the Apostle John converses with one of the 24 Elders in Chapter 5.Would you consider him a dead person or an apparition or what?

    Are you comparing the bible, inspired by the Holy Spirit, and the final authority on all things to a book written by Sundar Singh?

  • Nathan,

    There is a vast difference between God having allowed John to converse with one of the 24 Elders and necromancy. God allowed John to do it because He had something to reveal to him that had not yet been revealed before. Now listen again to what Sadhu said,

    “As we conversed together I received from them answers to my questions relating to my difficulties about many problems that puzzled me. My first inquiry was about what happens at the time of dying and about the state of the soul after death. I said, We know what happens to us between childhood and old age, but we know nothing of what happens at the time of death or beyond the gates of death. Correct information about it can be known only by those on the other side of death, after they have entered the spiritual world. Can you , I asked, give us any information about this?

    Really? I have always thought the Bible is the only source able to give us an accurate account of heaven and hell and not the deceased saints. Where in the Bible does it say “Correct information about it (the hereafter) can be known only by those on the other side of death, after they have entered the spiritual world?” Do you really believe that? When the rich man pleaded with Abraham to send Lazarus to warn his brothers about punishment in hell, he said to him,

    They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

    Well, you may not have called God a holy nitwit but you sure as hell suggested it when you said, “To be fair unless you can site another instance where Sadhu actually conjured the dead, I dont believe you can technically use the above chapter from his book to argue that he practiced Necromancy.” So, God is not going to judge him on the one single time he wrote this nonsense in one of his books because God always needs more than one example to prove a person guilty?

    Islam believes that when your intentions are right you won’t be judged. In other words, you can do what you like just as long as your intentions are right. You must be joking. It’s like punching someone on the nose and saying “Sorry, I didn’t mean it.” Rubbish!

    Who indicted Sadhu to everlasting damnation? Did I? I merely pointed out your own inordinate argument that we need more evidence to prove that Sadhu practiced necromancy, whether he did it on purpose or not.

    Tell me, how do you give grace to a dead man who may have misled millions of people? You may be one of them despite the fact that you agree necromancy to be a sin.

  • Nathan

    Tom
    My point in the last post was that GOD does address unintentional sin and acknowledges it as unintentional. GOD does command Moses to deal with it differently in the sense that he addresses it separately from people who intentionally sin.The remedy (for lack of a better term) may be the same but he does not lump them all together in Leviticus. Further I never said that Sundar accidentally or unintentionally conjured the dead. You implied that I was saying that but I wasn’t. I simply said that the text that you used to indict him for conjuring the dead does not indicate that he did such a thing. You are equating his testimony where he claims that Angels and Saints approached him as him practicing Necromancy. I am not. I do not believe based on that one text that there is evidence to prove that he was conjuring the dead or trying to. What would you have had his response be in that situation? Assuming he wasn’t trying to conjure the dead, does the fact that he responded to and engaged in conversation with these “Angles & Saints” make him guilty of Necromancy. Secondly, what is your response to my post that refers you to the Apostle John speaking with one of the 24 Elders in Heaven in the Book of Revelation? I am interested to get your take on that.

  • Nathan

    Tom

    I will try to answer your last post clearly.

    1st)As far as “the Bible is the only source able to give us an accurate account of heaven and hell and not the deceased saints.” The Bible is not a Systematic Theology. While it does give us some information about heaven and hell, I’m sure whenever we get on the other side of eternity there will be things we see that were not told us in the Bible. With that said, those who have gone before do know more than we.

    2nd)As far as GOD judging Sundar Singh, that’s GOD’s business, not mine. When the day of judgment comes I will probably be too concerned for the Mercy of God for myself to even be worried about how GOD will judge others. Believe you me we should all have this mindset. Matthew 7:21-23

    3rd) As far as giving Grace to a dead man who may have misled millions of people, the keyword is MAY, if what he taught was wrong. But from what I have read about this Sundar Singh, it seems to me that he taught the Cross of Christ. Is it possible that not everything he taught was correct. Not only is it possible, its probable. But that is most likely also the case with you and I.

    Finally, not that it is that important, but I have spent a lot of time in India planting churches and preaching the Gospel. I have pleaded with Hindus & Buddhists alike to turn from their idols many times. It seems to me that loving people even after death is the WAY of our LORD. And while you may not believe in praying for the dead, I would hope that the HOLY SPIRIT in you would at least hope in the mercy of our GOD even for those heading for damnation.

    This has been an enlightening conversation and I pray that our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ would Bless you and your Family. This is my final post. Godspeed!

  • Nathan wrote,

    Tom

    I will try to answer your last post clearly.

    1st)As far as the Bible is the only source able to give us an accurate account of heaven and hell and not the deceased saints. The Bible is not a Systematic Theology. While it does give us some information about heaven and hell, Im sure whenever we get on the other side of eternity there will be things we see that were not told us in the Bible. With that said, those who have gone before do know more than we.

    That’s not the point. The point is, will God allow deceased saints to contact the living to tell them what’s on the other side? Do you believe He will allow it?

    You wrote,

    2nd)As far as GOD judging Sundar Singh, thats GODs business, not mine. When the day of judgment comes I will probably be too concerned for the Mercy of God for myself to even be worried about how GOD will judge others. Believe you me we should all have this mindset. Matthew 7:21-23

    It is your duty, not to judge the person, but what he teaches or taught (1 John 4:1). YOu are NOT testing the spirits.

    Y0u wrote,

    3rd) As far as giving Grace to a dead man who may have misled millions of people, the keyword is MAY, if what he taught was wrong. But from what I have read about this Sundar Singh, it seems to me that he taught the Cross of Christ. Is it possible that not everything he taught was correct. Not only is it possible, its probable. But that is most likely also the case with you and I.

    So what! The Roman Catholics, the Mormons, the Calvinists, the Jehovah’s witnesses all teach the cross of Christ. Does that make them Christians? It is indeed possible for us to be in error and that is precisely why you and I must rely on what the Bible teaches and NOT men like Sadhu Singh. Don;t you realize that?

    Do you pray for the dead? Really???

  • Nathan wrote,

    Further I never said that Sundar accidentally or unintentionally conjured the dead. You implied that I was saying that but I wasnt.

    In one of your previous comments you said,

    Certainly if he was purposely trying to conjure the dead, that would be one thing but this text does not indicate one way or the other that he was doing that.

    You don’t seem to know what you are saying. The opposite of “purposely” is “accidentally.” Don’t you know that?

    Are you a Roman Catholic? If you are, I can understand why you believe in necromancy.

    I have already answered you on John and the 24 elders.

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Nathan

    >> My point in the last post was that GOD does address unintentional sin and acknowledges it as unintentional. GOD does command Moses to deal with it differently in the sense that he addresses it separately from people who intentionally sin.

    Do you follow the OT (old covenant) or the New Testament (New Covenant)? Do you sacrifice for your sins? Do you speak to Moses to deal with your sin? Or do you believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross for your sin and repent for sin ‘accidental’ or not? I don’t understand why you keep referring to the OT way of dealing with sin instead of focusing on the New Covenant you are ‘supposedly’ in.

    >> Assuming he wasnt trying to conjure the dead, does the fact that he responded to and engaged in conversation with these Angles & Saints make him guilty of Necromancy.

    Yes, conversing with the dead is necromancy.

    Are you a Catholic who prays to dead Saints?

    >> You are equating his testimony where he claims that Angels and Saints approached him as him practicing Necromancy. I am not.

    “Angels of light” will not approach someone unless they have done something to invite them, or sinned thereby opening a door for Satan to entertain you with his presence.

  • Michael

    You accuse Sundar Singh of necromancy, which is most unfair. In that case,you should also accuse our Lord Jesus, Peter, James, and John of necromancy, since they saw and spoke to Moses and Elijah on the Mount of Transfiguration.

  • yrreB

    Thank you for this article, there are indeed a lot of websites that only speak good about this man, I just started reading at the masters feet PDF version…

    A lot of things seems really good information, really, deep things to think about like for example:

    8. Just as the sponge lies in the water, and the water fills the sponge, but the water is not the sponge and the sponge is not the water, but they ever remain different things, so children abide in Me and I in them. This is not pantheism, but it is the kingdom of God, which is set up in the hearts of those who abide in this world; and just as the water in the sponge, I am in every place and in everything, but they are not I (Luke xvii.21).

    Wonderfull image of Christ and the Father, through the Holy Spirit will come and will make home with us (john 14:23).

    But on the other hand, there are really disturbing things this man proclaims indeed, even the fact that Christ speaks directly to him and sits with him is for me weird because I read in my Bible no such thing after Christ was taken up to heaven. Christ He ascended to send forth the Holy Spirit (John 7:39; 16:7; Acts 2:33). For the Holy Spirit to be poured out, Christ needed to ascended to the Father. So that makes me only think, of course some people have seen Christ, but such a deep conversation I only find weird and gives me confusion.

    Nonetheless it seems that this man, Sundar Singh has a lot of people that believed he indeed got the wisdom and this experience of Christ. I myself don’t know.

    So I have only one conclusion for myself and if anyone maybe is also a bit confused about it, let me read the Bible, for that is truly God’s word and light for my feet, by that, keeping his word the Son and the Father will live in us! So my prayer is let us dwell in His own words! And that my fellow brother and sisters is all what will makes us fruitfull: staying in Christ!

    John 14:
    23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

  • yrreB

    by the way another quote from him:

    Once I said, So many people will be lost because they have not heard of Christ.

    They (some angels Singh sees) said, The contrary will be the case ; very few will be lost.

    This is a kind of a heavenly joke, no, joke is not a good word for it.

    Very few will be lost but many will be saved.
    It is so, but dont tell, they said, as it were, in jest, because it will make men careless, and we want them to enjoy the First Heaven that is the Heaven on earth as well.

    If there were no hope for all the non-Christians in the world and all the Christians who die in sin, God would stop creating men.
    We must do our part here on earth to save sinners, but if they refuse we need not be
    without hope for them.

    So he believes everybody will be saved after dead, so in other words, broad is the way that leads to heaven, small is the path that leads to destruction….
    Man what a loss, sure this isn’t information out of my Bible!

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Thank you yrreb!

  • Just Me

    Thomas Lessing (Watch and Pray / Waak en Bid) wrote:

    Hari Har
    His background, nationality, language, attire and culture aside. His universalism alone made him a heretic. Furthermore, necromancy (conversing with the dead like Swedenborg) is an abomination in the sight of God. Therefore its rather odd that you should focus on his culture and not on the things that made him a heretic.

    Didn’t Jesus converse with the Moses and Elijah. Pretty sure they were dead. Oh, didn’t Jesus appear to Paul as an angel of light and wasn’t Paul blinded?

  • Just Me,

    I’m sure you will agree that Jesus is God and therefore quite capable of conversing with those who have already departed to be with the Lord in heaven. At any rate, when Jesus was transfigured in the presence of his three disciples, Peter James and John, He actually changed into another form. It was not just a transformation in outward appearance. What his disciples saw was what He will look like in his glorified body when He returns visibly in power and glory to establish his Kingdom on earth. The fact that Moses and Elijah spoke to Him in visible form, is proof that all the saints who had already died are going to return with Him in their glorified bodies like unto his own at his Second Advent to the earth (not the Pretribulation Rapture). To assume that, because He conversed with two dead people ONCE and never again in this most unique instance on the Mountain of Transfiguration, it gives anyone the right to also speak to the dead, is rather dangerous. You are actually saying that all saints are already in their glorified bodies and therefore capable of speaking to the already departed saints. The fact remains that we are forbidden to speak to the dead.

    There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer (one who seeks the guidance of the dead). For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee. (Deu 18:10-12)

  • Andrew Park

    Sundar Singh is my hero of faith. Be careful not to commit the sin of judging others without looking into the depth of their faith and lover for Jesus. He truly gave everything to Jesus for His mission. God’s blessings!

  • That’s just where you miss the bus. You are not supposed to follow Sundar Singh. You are commanded to follow Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God. Repent of your evil. How sure are you that the Jesus to whom he supposedly gave everything to Jesus, is truly the Jesus Christ of the Bible and not another Jesus?

  • Christo Chiramukhathu

    You Western devil..! What was his mistake..? He was following a pure Hindu life style throughout his life.. Jesus was the spiritual model who followed a pure Hindu life style. Jesus spent His hours in prayer and meditation…That was actually done by Sunder Singh also. Not like Western so called ‘spiritual fellows’ who find joy in partaking in noisy beastly songs, dancing mingling with women who shows half-nudity, and eat tons of meat…! Sunder Singh was wearing Saffron robe, not western dirty suite and tie..! (I hate this dirty dress). For anyone to become Christian, he must adopt Hindu life style, because that’s the only spiritual life style in this world. Western life style is materialistic life style..! Indian is Spiritual. Jesus was teaching and showing Spirituality in His life. Sunder Singh was a great saint revealed it in his own real life.

  • Christo Chiramukhathu

    The Hindu Scriptures claim that there are 33 Crore or 330 million (1 Crore = 10 million) gods and not a single one of them is called Jesus Christ. Yet you have the audacity to speak about Jesus and his alleged pure Hindu lifestyle? The Hindu Jesus you are talking about is another Jesus who espouses another gospel that cannot save. (2 Cor 11:4). The Jesus of the Bible did not come to spend his hours in prayer and meditation. He came to the earth to seek and to save the lost. (Luke 19:10). Indeed, He is trying to find you but you are refusing to be found of Him. I urge you to repent and to receive the real Jesus Christ as your Saviour.

    Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (Joh 14:6)

    About 82% of the people in India are Hindus. Now read this for some real humdinger sexual misconducts.

  • John

    I read all urs and comments too, I’m an Indian living in India, dress code- saffron robe does not have any relation to Hinduism where is the hindu scripture reference ?
    U can’t understand no matter how much u research bcz you are not from our land. Just like u, using head to understandverse can’t explain, its experience and relation with God.
    Hinduism is a religion which has absorbed lot of customs n tradition to have its ground.
    Why Emy Carmichael applied tea leaves stains to dark her and go in saree, she was the same in Chinese robe in China, Indian dress code is not same everywhere,
    Then sundar Singh was a Sikh not Hindu.

  • John

    Tom (Discerning the World) wrote:

    Christo Chiramukhathu

    About 82% of the people in India are Hindus.

    Its not true, regarding %. Actual is around 50%. And I agree with christo on few things when he was speaking about materialism but it should not be Hindu dress code.

  • I would love to have the ability to drop all, live in a warm climate, sit under a tree and pray to the Lord all day long while people came to hear what I had to say and bring me food! Maybe once in a while start walking to see where my feet would lead, sleep by a tree, not worry about getting arrested, raped, murdered but just left alone because I want to grow in relationship with my Lord. Oh, to be a man, and to live in the days of old in India. Yep, I would have worn the traditional clothing as well.
    Hubert wrote:

    There is too much assumption in what you are saying about Sadhu Sundar Singh. Todd Bentley uses many other people besides sundar to justified waht he is doing. He definately had the wrong spirit. However Sadhu Sundar Singhdid leave his old lifestyle behind. Just like any one of us, when we followed Christ, we leave ourold lifestyle behind. The question here is do we penalize him because he wear an orange robe? Do we penalize the menonites becausde they wear a headdress? Do we penalize the chinese Christian because during somepart of their wedding they had to wear traditioonal chinese costume and cheong sam? Sundar was a punjabi. He minsters in the Indian subcontinent, so that type of dressing is totally acceptable. Thats their simple costume, a robe. Jesus wears a robe too. Sadhu simply means holy man in their language, hindi. but in that culture it refers to him as a teacher. They call Jesus a rabbi too? Is Jesus a Pharasee? In Laos and thailand they call pastors Ajahn, but they also call monks ajahn too. Are they the same? In China, taiwan, singapore and malaysia,they call some one who teaches the word lao shi but they also call taoist who teachesrs taoism lao shi. In muslim culture, they call God Allah. But in malay and indonesia, the christians also call God Allah.Is muslim and Christian the same? Todd Bentley(whom i also believe is demon possessed himself) says he saw Sundar. That is liken to Saul seeing Samuel which is demonic in nature. so What todd bentley claims to see is not sahdu and could be a familar spirit.

  • This is different than one who sees someone who has passed and they spoke to them. The scripture that you reference to is to seek the dead for advice. I must say that when I was only 8 years old, my grandmother passed away and I saw her in the clouds and she told me that she is okay and not to worry. No one knew that she was gone, I cried and had to sleep in my mothers room. The next morning we got a call that my grandmother had died that evening. I was a child, who went to catholic church. I loved Jesus and knew not much of anything else. I never saw her again, I never went out to find people to talk with her etc…So, I know that the Lord loves me and that I am his. Just because this happened, does not mean that we are in the wrong spirit. However, I agree that it is strange to have ongoing conversations with an angel or whatever it is. When I was 8 was not the only time that my eyes were opened to the spiritual world. When my ex-husbands (don’t judge, he left me, an unbeliever, who found someone else) brother passed away, I was throwing newspapers and driving over a bridge. I saw him walking and recognized him and asked myself, “What is Peter doing out here?” I almost turned around to see if he needed a ride, but I kept going because I was not sure. I was not aware that he had just passed away. I don’t know why these things happen. I sort of looked at it as a comfort, a good bye of sorts. I sure don’t look for it! anyways.

    Tom (Discerning the World) wrote:

    Just Me,

    Im sure you will agree that Jesus is God and therefore quite capable of conversing with those who have already departed to be with the Lord in heaven. At any rate, when Jesus was transfigured in the presence of his three disciples, Peter James and John, He actually changed into another form. It was not just a transformation in outward appearance. What his disciples saw was what He will look like in his glorified body when He returns visibly in power and glory to establish his Kingdom on earth. The fact that Moses and Elijah spoke to Him in visible form, is proof that all the saints who had already died are going to return with Him in their glorified bodies like unto his own at his Second Advent to the earth (not the Pretribulation Rapture). To assume that, because He conversed with two dead people ONCE and never again in this most unique instance on the Mountain of Transfiguration, it gives anyone the right to also speak to the dead, is rather dangerous. You are actually saying that all saints are already in their glorified bodies and therefore capable of speaking to the already departed saints. The fact remains that we are forbidden to speak to the dead.

    There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer (one who seeks the guidance of the dead). For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee. (Deu 18:10-12)

  • Hi Susan, next time when an angel or a deceased family member appears to you, pray the following prayer, “Dear Lord Jesus, if this is of you, I say amen to it. However, if it is not of You, I rebuke you Satan, in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Leave me in the Name of Jesus Christ”

  • Are you still Catholic and clairvoyant?

  • Susan

    you said: “Yep, I would have worn the traditional clothing as well.”

    I bet you would…

    Based on another comment on another article…Are you still Catholic and clairvoyant?

  • Dear Christo Chiramukhathu

    you said “You Western devil..!”

    Sorry but all I can do is laugh right now…lol

    you said “For anyone to become Christian, he must adopt Hindu life style”

    ohhhh Im sorry now I’m really laughing.

    Show me one Hundu text where it says you must follow Jesus Christ the SON OF GOD and NO OTHER GOD to become a born again Christian? Just one…come on, just one.. :)

  • John

    You quote SSS:

    Nobody will be allowed to enter into Heaven who has not a face like Jesus Christ. That is the only ticket, otherwise we shall find ourselves out of place there. Only those who follow Him will feel at home there.

    Then you write:

    No where is this in the bible. Not a single scripture to back this up.

    How could you not be aware of what Jesus himself said – “I am the way … No one comes to the Father except by becoming like me”? (Jn14:6) OK I have paraphrased it very slightly to make its meaning clear. But he says plenty elsewhere “be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect” and “Except your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes …” etc. Until you make this your life’s aim and progress in that endeavour you will never be “considered worthy of the age to come” (Lk20:35)

    So yes, unless you conform your life so that you look like Jesus or “Have his face” you will not be allowed to enter Heaven. You should remember that SSS wrote in Urdu and was translated to English, so to get the meaning correct you need to understand the Urdu expression that translates to “have someone’s face”. SSS became sufficiently like Jesus that after a visit from him to their house children thought they had met with Jesus. What a compliment – SSS obviously “had Jesus’ face”!

    If you imagine that someone else’s righteousness can be “imputed” to you (a totally unbiblical concept, the only thing ever “imputed” was faith, and that was Abraham’s own faith!) then you will be just as disappointed as the foolish virgins who didn’t have oil of their own when the bridegroom came. It is by following Jesus so that His righteousness becomes your own righteousness – so that you “have his face” in translation from SSS – that you will be allowed into the wedding banquet.

  • Dear John

    You said “How could you not be aware of what Jesus himself said I am the way No one comes to the Father except by becoming like me? (Jn14:6) OK I have paraphrased it very slightly to make its meaning clear.”

    If ever there was a change in the meaning of a sentence you did a smashing job. The BIBLE SAYS;

      John 14:6
      6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

    NOT becoming LIKE me.

    How could you not be aware of the verse that says:

      Revelation 22:18-19
      18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

    Bible says:

      Matthew 5:48
      48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

    It also says:

      1 John 1:8-10
      8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
      9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

    Tell me do Catholics who believe in ‘Jesus’ have the face of Jesus too? Was Mother Theresa a Christian? Everyone including the Pope (God on earth) claimed she was perfect and she was canonized to be a Saint? Did she have the ‘face of Jesus’?

  • John

    So you think I have changed Jesus’ meaning!? Recall that he has just been asked the way to the Father’s house, and he has just assured them that they already know the way. So then he makes it plain “I am the way” and makes it quite explicit by saying there is no other way to the Father than the way they already know – Jesus himself – the way he is (I am the way). So in order to come to the Father, the-way-they-are must become conformed to the-way-Jesus-is. This is the way he has been demonstrating and they have been “following” as disciples for ~4 years already. The whole Jesus sect became known as “the Way” (Ac9:2,19:9&23) and Paul admitted that he himself had become a “follower of the Way” (Ac24:14&24).

    Obviously “following him” means listening to and obeying him and since he lived what he preached, it means imitating his lifestyle – becoming like him – having a like mind with Christ (Phils2:2). He said to take his yoke and learn from him – because it was the same yoke he himself wore and he could testify that it was easy and light. It must be a way that they already knew so it cannot include anything to do with him dying for sin or something – because at the time when he said those words the last thing they could imagine happening was that he might die.

    If you disagree with this meaning, what other meaning would you like? Jesus is the path – so he must lay down while they walk on him!? Jesus is the way so they must literally “follow him” by tagging along behind where ever he goes!? What do you think Jesus wanted his disciples to understand when he said “I am the Way … to come to the Father”?

    On your other points – surely it is obvious to you that John in Revelation is only referring to the words of that actual prophecy. It is a bit late to add anything to Revelation once it has been mass printed! In case you didn’t know, Revelation was not the last book written as John himself wrote his gospel shortly after Revelation and John’s first epistle was written later still being the covering letter to accompany his gospel.

    There is a major difference between never having sinned (which is not possible for most) and being “cleansed from all unrighteousness” so that we sin no more. This is possible for all, and is in fact necessary and the only way in which to ever come to the Father. It doesn’t need to be completed in this life as Jesus has many mansions in which you may continue to progress towards perfection in your life there.

    Of course many Catholics are “followers of the Way” such that they resemble Jesus to varying degrees. How could they not be? You grow in the likeness of that which you love, and if they love and serve Jesus they can’t help but grow in his likeness. Mother Theresa grew far more into Jesus’ likeness than almost all others. But she was not quite perfect. Otherwise she would not have died but would have been translated as were Enoch and Elijah (who obviously did achive perfection within their life on earth).

    Since God intervened to rescue SSS miraculously from accidental death many times, and since as far as we know he was not martyred (in which God rarely intervenes), it seems very likely that SSS was also one who achieved perfection within his earthly life and so was translated without seeing death.

    I wonder if you are aware of what happened to some insolent youths who mocked Elisha after Elijah’s translation? (2Ki2:23) I wouldn’t be in your shoes in bad mouthing God’s truest servants like the Sadhu and Mother Theresa! It might not be regarded lightly by our heavenly audience.

  • John

    You said “Of course many Catholics are followers of the Way such that they resemble Jesus to varying degrees. How could they not be? You grow in the likeness of that which you love, and if they love and serve Jesus they cant help but grow in his likeness. Mother Theresa grew far more into Jesus likeness than almost all others. But she was not quite perfect. ”

    Roman Catholicism is a Babylonian Pagan religion. Me thinks you need to do your research on this. Now if you think Catholics are Christian, when they are NOT, what else can you be wrong about? Sadhu Sundar Singh for instance?

  • John

    Dear Deb,

    I don’t know where you get the idea that Catholicism is a Babylonian Pagan religion. Remember that prior to the reformation Catholicism was pretty much all there was. So are you saying that before the reformation there were no Christians at all. That everyone who tried to follow Jesus before the reformation were really all Babylonian Pagans! Seems hard to believe don’t you think?

    Remember protestantism is really just a rather modern branch of that same Babylonian Paganism – so what do you think is the main change or essential new ingredient that means your religion is not simply a continuation with variation of Babylonian Paganism?

    I do appreciate that “Babylon the Great, the Mother of Prostitutes, etc” of Revelation 17 is indeed Rome – the city that sits on 7 hills. But this is not the Roman Catholic church but is rather the Roman Empire! Remember the dragon with seven heads that tried to devour the baby church as soon as it was born – I think this also is a picture of the Roman Empire of the first century that tried with enormous persecution to destroy the fledgling church but failed. I think it is almost certain that Nero of Rome was the beast whose number is six hundred and sixty six (“Nero Caesar” = 666 using Greek->Hebrew transliteration or 616 using Latin->Hebrew). Maybe you could point me to something that might substantiate your claim about Roman Catholicism?

    I think it would be worth defining just what you think a Christian is. In my view it is someone who actually tries to follow Jesus – such that they actually do things that he said they should do, and refrain from doing things that he said they shouldn’t do, because he said to. People that behave in the way Jesus would have them behave without knowing what he said (eg Old Testament saints) can hardly be called Christians because they are not “following” Christ. But they must be in the same position before God as those who do. “To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honour and immortality, he will give eternal life” (Rom2:7). So I think finding acceptance by God without knowing about Jesus is not so difficult, and is certainly not the impossibility that I suspect you think it is!

  • Dear John

    The apostles and everyone genuinely saved since were not Catholic, they were Christian. Catholic means “Universal Church” and was established in Rome by Simon Magus the Sorcerer. St Peter is actually Simon ‘Peter’ the Sorcerer. Rome AND it’s religion is a continuation of Babylon. Genuine Christianity has been fighting against this evil since the beginning of time. Please read: https://www.discerningtheworld.com/2017/03/20/simon-magus-apostle-simon-peter/

      2 Thessalonians 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

    You said: “I think it would be worth defining just what you think a Christian is. In my view it is someone who actually tries to follow Jesus”

    Actually nope, a Christian is someone that is born again, not someone that ‘tries’ to follow Jesus.

      John 3:3 “Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

    The Pope tries to follow Jesus? Is he Christian? Mother Theresa tried to follow Jesus? Is she Christian? Just because someone does what Jesus ‘does’ does not make them Christian. Being born again AND following the commandments of God makes you a Christian.

      1 John 5:3 “For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.”

    Many unbelievers do good and appear saintly, many unbelievers ‘follow another Jesus’

      2 Corinthians 11:4 “For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.”

    Being a ‘follower of Jesus’ actually means to ‘follow the path Jesus Christ took’, not to be born again made a new creature in Jesus Christ and follow the commandments of Jesus Christ the Son of God.

      2 Corinthians 5:17 “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.”

  • John

    Dear Deb,

    Thanks for all the references. I appreciate the time you took to reply. However I am sorry to have to say that I think your Catholic=Paganism idea is a house of cards built on thinner evidence than the faked moon landing (If you also believe the moon landing was faked then I am very sorry for you!). The Acts passage suggests quite strongly that Simon Magus genuinely repented.

    We read that he was “amazed” at the signs that accompanied the apostles – which suggests that the “miracles” he could induce were of a much lower quality. He was again amazed and strongly desired to be able to produce the effect of the Holy Spirit – which as miracles go is really unimpressive being pretty much only subjective. This all suggests that Simon’s own “miracles” were little more than conjuring trickery – and thus he had no more real power than any other mortal, but just cleverness. He may have had an invisible helper or two in decades past, but at pentecost their unsanctioned activity was pretty much shut down so by the time of his altercation with Peter he would probably have had to resort to trickery to produce miracles. As for all the other myths and legends which might refer to the same guy ([see wikipedia]), well which ones do you believe! They are so contradictory that most must be fiction and maybe they all are. To imagine that a guy like this could end up dominating the Roman world is a bit like imagining that someone like Yuri Geller or James Randi could take over America with their tricks.

    Universal studios – are they also also a pagan religion based just because they use the word Catholic (albeit in a different language). It is not reasonable to think that because someone used what is a common word that they must have deep connections with something else that uses the same common word!

    You can’t worship something you don’t even know about. Worship is an attitude of mind which upholds as “worthy” something that is known and perceived as worthy and gives it praise. It is not possible to “give worth” to something you don’t think is worthy any more than it is possible to “believe” something you know is not true.

    Being “born again” is a metaphor – a bit like having “your robe washed in the blood of the lamb”. It doesn’t happen physicaly and so you have to interpret the expression, and different people will interpret it differently according to their experience. In any case whereas you can choose to “follow Christ” and thereby “become a follower of the Way” and therefore a Christian, you cannot choose to be born again. It happens how and when the Spirit chooses and a Christian may not even recognise that it has already happened to them because they are not sensitive to, or familiar with, the symptoms. If one cannot remember one’s physical birth, why should one remember one’s spiritual birth. So being “born again” and “made a new creature” are not useful descriptions of someone that is a Christian because they are metaphors that have no well defined meaning.

    As far as we know Jesus had no “born again” conversion experience, but he definitely was “born again” or “born of the Spirit” because he further says “we speak of what we know and testify what we have seen”. In his case and for many others born into Christian families, they simply grow into spiritual life by constantly seeking and following the Father’s will.

    Jesus gave us a sure guide to determine someone’s standing before God – “You will know them by their fruits.” (Mat7:17) He says just as you cannot “gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles”, even so “a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.” (Mat7:18) You are calling trees that clearly bear good fruit “bad trees”, so you are clearly wrong!

  • Dear John

    Thank you for that comment. You said “Being “born again” is a metaphor – a bit like having “your robe washed in the blood of the lamb”. It doesn’t happen physical and so you have to interpret the expression, and different people will interpret it differently according to their experience.”

    Well if that’s the case according to your logic, then Mary’s virgin birth was a metaphor too, only she experienced it. How can we say it actually happened? In fact lets just make the bible one big metaphor – nothing can be interpreted to have any real meaning.

    As a matter of interest, in reality when you are born again, you do know it, every genuine Christian knows it and spiritually in heaven when you are born again “your robe is washed in the blood of the lamb”.

      1 Peter 1:18-19 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; 19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot;

      Revelation 7:14 “And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.”

    Is the coming 7 year Tribulation a metaphor as well?

    The blood of Jesus Christ covers you spiritually that you can enter into the presence of God. Without the blood covering that covers your sin, you can not enter into the Holiest in Heaven.

      Hebrews 10:19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, (Ephesians 2:13)

    Is this a metaphor as well?

    You said “As far as we know Jesus had no born again conversion experience, but he definitely was born again or born of the Spirit

    Jesus Christ the Son of God did not need to be born again, He was and still is the Son of God, fully human fully God. He was baptised by John the Baptist as a sign to the Jews that He was in fact the Son of God, their Messiah.

      Matthew 3:13-17 “13Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. 14But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? 15And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him. 16And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: 17And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”

    You said “Jesus gave us a sure guide to determine someone’s standing before God – “You will know them by their fruits.” (Mat7:17) He says just as you cannot “gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles”, even so “a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.” (Mat7:18) You are calling trees that clearly bear good fruit “bad trees”, so you are clearly wrong!”

      The Bible says: Isaiah 64:6 “But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away. “

    — Tell me, the Pope is he Christian?

    — When you talk about ‘following Jesus’ what do you actually mean? Following the commandments set out in the Bible or doing good works like feeding the poor etc?

    — Do you venerate Mary?

    — Do you go to a priest for forgiveness of sin?

  • John

    Dear Deb,

    “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mothers womb and be born?” The answer is obvious that he cannot. So the “born again” expression must be understood as a metaphor instead.

    Can a virgin become pregnant and have a child. Of course she can – by artificial (or miraculous) insemination. So this is a real physical event. This is not a metaphor.

    Do you own a robe? Have you washed it in the blood of a lamb? Is it white from being washed in blood? These things are obviously not physical! Why can’t you see this!

    Most things in John’s visions in Revelation are metaphorical. This should be really obvious. Does Jesus really have a sword coming out of his mouth? Can stars (ie suns which are a million times larger than the earth) really be thrown down onto the earth! Besides which in the very introduction says “what must soon take place” (Rev1:1). So if it was soon for the readers for whom it was written, it is long past for us! (So no “coming Tribulation” I think)

    Hebrews 10:19 is speaking of (1) entering the holy of holies by (2) the blood of Jesus. Clearly (1) the holy of holies is long gone since it was part of the temple which was destroyed in 70AD by the Romans, and (2) Jesus’ blood is also long gone having disappeared in the tomb along with his dead body. So of course it is a metaphor! How is it that you can’t see this?!!! I really don’t understand how anyone can be so …..!

    Even though Jesus was pre-existent, he can still be born. And just as he can be born of a woman, he can also be born of the Spirit (which is what it means to be born again). And having been born of the Spirit he must then grow in the Spirit: “And the child grew and became strong in spirit … and the favour of God was upon him” (Lk2:40).

    Isaiah 64:6 is not speaking of people who bear good fruit. Rather it is speaking of a people who are “carried away” with “iniquities” and unrepentant – “we have sinned – and in these ways we continue” (v5). The few “righteounesses” that they do (like sacrificing animals or attending church) are indeed as filthy rags because the rest of their lives and their hearts are evil.

    I think the current Pope appears to be a practicing Christian – one of the best Popes yet.

    By following Jesus, I simply mean believing what he said – that God is our Father and all humans are our brothers and sisters. And then living accordingly – primarily to please God and secondarily to love our brothers and sisters as ourselves. You don’t need the Bible to do either of these things. Everyone has a pretty good idea of how people might behave in heaven with their Creator watching, and so we should behave that way here and now. Indeed if your Bible seems to disagree with this principle (eg not healing someone on the Sabbath) then that part at least should be disregarded.

    If you try to live this way because Jesus said to, then you are a Christian. If you have scarcely heard of Jesus but try to live this way because you believe in God and want to please your Creator, then while you couldn’t be called a Christian, you are just as “born again” as any Christian might be and will be welcomed into the life hereafter.

    Hope this answers your questions sufficiently. Since I am tired of this sometimes rather silly exchange, I might take a break for a while.

  • Dear John

    I disagree totally with your entire comment.

    You said “Do you own a robe? Have you washed it in the blood of a lamb? Is it white from being washed in blood? These things are obviously not physical! Why cant you see this!”

    I said, it’s spiritual not literal. Why can’t you see this! Yes/

    You said “Hebrews 10:19 is speaking of (1) entering the holy of holies by (2) the blood of Jesus. Clearly (1) the holy of holies is long gone since it was part of the temple which was destroyed in 70AD by the Romans, and (2) Jesus blood is also long gone having disappeared in the tomb along with his dead body. So of course it is a metaphor! How is it that you cant see this?!!! I really dont understand how anyone can be so ..!”

    Oh but on the contrary my dear John, the TEMPLE of God is (literally) in Heaven, the one on earth (literally) built by Israel (instructions given to them by God) was a replica of the (physcial) temple in Heaven – The Holiest of Holies in Heaven and it’s REAL. After Jesus rose from the dead, he (physically) went up to heaven and (He actually did this, He:) sprinkled His PRECIOUS blood on the mercy seat of the ark of the covenant.

    After he rose from the dead, He encountered Mary outside the Tomb. He said to her Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father”, why? Because no man could touch Jesus, He needed to (physically) go to Heaven and sprinkle his PURE, SINLESS, PRECIOUS blood on the Mercy Seat.

      John 20:17 “Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

    When He ascended to heaven he entered into the Holy of Holies, sprinkled His precious blood upon the Mercy Seat on the Altar before the throne of God, Jesus Christ had then forever settled the sin question, and delivered us from the curse of the law.

      Hebrews 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

    In the Old Testament they (literally) had to make a sin offering through sacrifice on an ongoing basis, but Jesus came to make one sacrifice for us, one offering, and His blood was sprinkled once in the temple on the Mercy Seat in heaven.

      Hebrews 9:24-26 24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: 25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; 26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

    Jesus Christ paid the (literal) debt of sin that He did not owe, because we owed that debt of sin that we could not pay. Our sins had to be paid for with Jesus blood.

      1 John 1:7 “But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin

    An Old Covenant

    In the Old Testament the peoples sins were only atoned for i.e, (covered for) once a year. The High Priest would (physically) sacrifice a Lamb and put the blood on the Altar in the Holy of Holies.

    Hebrews 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

      Hebrews 9:7-8: 7 But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people: 8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:
      Leviticas 1:5: and the priests, Aarons sons, shall bring the blood and sprinkle the blood all around on the altar that is by the door of the tabernacle of meeting.
      Leviticas 4:6: The priest shall dip his finger in the blood and sprinkle some of the blood seven times before the LORD, in front of the veil of the sanctuary.
      Leviticas 4:30: Then the priest shall take some of its blood with his finger, put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering.

    THE PASSOVER

    The blood was (literally) applied from the animal and it was required that the animal had to die, and give its life. The Blood represents life, the life of Jesus Christ that had to die for our sins. Jesus Christ is the Lamb that had to (literally) die. Jesus Christ fulfilled the Passover Lamb. To have the blood applied on the altar was so that one would not receive the judgment of God as He would passover you.

      Exod.12:13 And when I see the blood, I will pass over you; and the plague shall not be on you to destroy you when I strike the land of Egypt.

    In the New Testament, Jesus Christ is now (literally) our High Priest and He is the sacrificed Lamb. Jesus is the one who after he ascended into Heaven (physically) sprinkled His blood on the Mercy Seat of the Altar before God, not us. The blood of Jesus is therefore (spiritually) applied to our lives only when we believe in faith in Jesus Christ to receive His Atonement. God now PASSES OVER us, we are no longer under judgement.

    JESUS CHRIST REPLACES THE LAW SACRIFICE

    This verse below speaks of the blood of animals, which were (literally) sacrificed to temporarily cover the sins of the people in the Old Testament, until the Messiah would come and offer the perfect Sacrifice of Himself to God the Father.

      We read in Hebrews 9:12 concerning Jesus, Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

    Jesus blood didnt just atone for our sins; but rather, took them away forever!

      Eph.1:7 7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; and Colossians. 1:14
      Leviticus 17:11 states, For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

    A New Covenant

      Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

    I repeat: (and this is LITERAL not a Metaphor) When Jesus Christ ascended to heaven he entered into the Holy of Holies in HEAVEN, LITERALLY sprinkled His precious blood upon the Mercy Seat on the Altar before the throne of God, and forever settled the sin question, and delivered us from the curse of the law.

    Jesus is now our High Priest

      Hebrews 9:13-14 13For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: 14How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

    And when we are (SPIRITUALLY) BORN AGAIN, Jesus Christ (SPIRITUALLY) sprinkles our hearts with his blood. Jesus blood that is sprinkled in heaven, sprinkles our hearts from an evil conscience

      Hebrews 10:20-22
      20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; 21 And having an high priest over the house of God; 22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water

    And because of this we are redeemed through the blood of the everlasting covenant

      Heb. 13:20. “Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,

    When you are SPIRITUALLY born again, the blood covering washes away our sin and is a covering that presents us holy and unblameable and spotless in Gods sight. In order for us to come before God, into His presence, you can only come to the Father through Jesus Christ His Son. Once you accept Jesus Christ and His sacrifice on the cross to save you and repent of your sin, His blood (SPIRITUALLY) covers you once, so that you can appear spotless before God. If it was not for Jesus Blood you would not be able to stand before God.

    This is clearly taught in the New testament. And it is not a metaphor.

    You said “I really dont understand how anyone can be so ..!”

    Name calling is not a nice thing to do, do you think Jesus Christ is happy about that?

    2 new questions:

    — If Jesus’ Christs blood is only a metaphor, then tell me what exactly does Jesus Christ mean for you? Is He just someone you must follow and copy his ways to get to heaven? Or does He forgive you of sin? Or is forgiveness of sin metaphorical too?

    — Tell me do you ever sin?

    You never answered the following 2 questions I posed in my previous comment:

    - Do you venerate Mary?
    - Do you go to a priest for forgiveness of sin?

  • John

    When you speak of something as being physical (eg washing a robe in blood) but are actually meaning something spiritual, then this is obviously a metaphor as any robe you wear does not need washing – rather it is your heart and will that needs washing. It is representative and symbolic, not actual and literal. Literal blood is red and so “washing” something in it is not going to make it clean and white is it! If something gets blood on it then you need to wash it in water to make it clean again.

    What “is sown a natural body, … is raised a spiritual body.” (1Cor15:44) “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God” (v50). Jesus’ resurrection body was not made of flesh and blood or it would not have been able to appear and disappear, pass through walls, etc. So no bodies with flowing blood in heaven I think, and certainly no sprinkling of physical blood around the place! (Have you thought how he would get the blood out? – would he slit a wrist and wave his arm around? pierce his jugular and shake his head? He wouldn’t want to puncture his abdomen too deep or turdy stuff from his intestines might come out also! Would he put a band-aid on after to stop the bleeding?)

    I don’t believe the earthly temple is a copy of anything in heaven. If the curtain separating people from the holy of holies in the physical temple had to be torn in half and the temple’s complete destruction foretold by Jesus and executed by the Romans, why would you want a copy of that obviously deficient and obsolete structure in heaven?

    God does not desire sacrifice but mercy (Mat9:13, 12:7, Hos6:6), listening and obedience (Sam15:22), and heart repentance (Ps51:16-17). Micah summarises God’s requirements as acting justly, loving mercy, and walking humbly with Him (Mic6:8). In the light of these enlightened prophets calling Israel away from their ancient sacrificial system, why ever would you want to retrogress back to that darkness again?! If sacrifices were obviously deficient way back in Hosea and Micah’s day, then more modern sacrifices must also be deficient, including sacrificing a human (Jesus).

    Apart from the obvious contradictions, if you want to take the OT representation of God seriously, then what do you think of the fact that the first offspring of every womb including every firstborn son was forfeit to the LORD and either had to be killed as a sacrifice, or if human then it should be ransomed to save it from being sacrificed? (Exod13:12-15 & 34:19-20) This means that Jesus’ life was already forfeit and Jesus himself had need to be ransomed! This we find happening in Luke 2:23-24. So if Jesus’ life was already forfeit such that it had to be ransomed, it doesn’t make sense that he could then be used as payment to ransom others. Or if it was in fact possible that a ransomed individual could be used to ransom more, then it means that everyone was really ransomed by the one first little payment of Joseph that ransomed Jesus!

    Did Jesus’ blood also cleanse all women from the “uncleanness” of childbirth for all the children that have been born since the first Easter? I don’t think any of the Apostles suggested that it did. So why do you happily disregard this purification sacrifice (which was apparently important to remove Mary’s uncleanness after giving birth to Jesus) but are unwilling to regard the other sacrificial ceremonies (passover or whatever) as no longer relevant?

    Jesus swept away all of the ceremonials of sacrifice and atonement and destroyed the basis of all this fictitious guilt and sense of isolation by declaring that man is a child of God. The creature-Creator relationship was placed on a child-parent basis. God becomes a loving Father to his mortal sons and daughters. All ceremonials not a legitimate part of such an intimate family relationship are forever abrogated.

    The effort made by some New Testament writers to connect the new gospel teaching with the old Jewish theology (as in the atonement teaching) had the worthy motivation of trying to make the gospel of the kingdom more acceptable to disbelieving Jews. However it failed as far as winning the Jews, and has confused and alienated many honest souls in all subsequent generations. It seems to have found acceptance in early Christianity because it was also present in the mystery cults (eg Attis and Mithras) and the large number of early converts from these cults were happy to embrace it.

    God Himself said from heaven “This is my beloved Son, listen to him” (Mat17:5, Mk9:7, Lk9:35). But God never said that of Jesus’ followers – Paul & Co. So I suggest you listen to Jesus first and foremost and where his followers go beyond or differ from the message that Jesus instructed and trained them to teach, don’t replace Jesus’ gospel message with theirs! Jesus never said anything about his death until after Peter’s famous confession and shortly before he was due to make his last trip to Jerusalem (Mat16:21). Peter’s reaction shows that this was the last thing they expected and right until he had actually died they did not accept that it would happen. This proves that Jesus’ death formed no part of the gospel message which they had been trained to preach for several years and even trained a second generation of 70 evangelists to continue with (Lk10:1). So unless you can substantiate your theories of blood covering and what-not from Jesus’ own teaching, I am going to ignore them as tradition added by the very early catholic church that should be discarded.

    I did not call you a name – I left a blank for you to fill in! I couldn’t make up my mind whether to call you “blind” or “uneducated” for not being able to identify obvious figures of speech at what I imagine should be elementary level English. I left a blank just to voice my frustration. Jesus called the church leaders of his day “blind guides” and I think that description fits you also since you present yourself as a teacher. So you can consider yourself called that – but kindly – because I really think you mean well!

    The shedding of Jesus’ blood on the cross is obviously not a metaphor – the same as if get stabbed my blood gets spilt and makes a mess. But as soon as it is applied to cleansing in some way – then clearly it must be metaphorical because real blood does not make things clean but messy. Jesus spoke of eating his flesh and drinking his blood – clearly that must be metaphorical. It is by metaphorically eating his flesh and drinking his blood that we can be cleansed and purified – by absorbing his flesh-and-blood life into our own lives so that his life becomes ours and we start to behave as he behaved. In this way we “have the face of Jesus” to use SSS’s expression – which is also obviously a metaphor.

    To me, Jesus is my creator and my elder brother. By his behaviour as a human clothed in flesh and sharing our blood, He showed us what his and our Father is like – absolutely lovely and pure light with no dark side at all (1Jn1:5). (That certainly means he needs no innocent blood to be shed to appease his anger!)

    Say you or your spouse has grieved the other by unfaithfulness but you really want to stay together and be close again. That requires real forgiveness and is not easy (to say the least!) Our relationship with God is even closer and more loving than that of a spouse because he lives within our minds and shares our thoughts. So although forgiveness is not physical, it is real and literal. It is not a metaphor. To draw close and feel God’s love within, one needs to not grieve Him with ugly thoughts.

    As for venerating Mary, I don’t see it as even relevant and it probably depends what you think “venerate” means. I don’t think Mary caught on to Jesus’ spiritual mission even after he died and rose again. She rather hoped he would be the Messiah that would free the Jews from Roman oppression. I think that is pretty disappointing for someone who could have been so close and understood so much, and could have even left us something in writing about his early years! If I imagined that Mary was this wonderful lady that never sinned and was Jesus’ closest confidant, then I would venerate her – as she would probably be worthy of it. I do venerate SSS as I think he is worthy, and I would be pleased if I could attain even a fraction of his spiritual stature.

    I know I still sin. I still get satisfaction (and maybe even pleasure) from revenge type movies. You know the standard Hollywood fare where after literally getting away with the meanest murders possible the bad guy finally gets what is coming to him. The trouble is that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Eze33:22) and so neither did Jesus and if we are to “have his face”, neither should we! I find it difficult to “have the mind of Jesus” in this situation don’t you? But it must be possible – I am sure SSS saw no pleasure in revenge.

    As far as priests go, I don’t know what the word should even mean in a Christian setting. If God is my Father and I am his child, where does a “priest” fit in to the family picture?

  • Hi John

    1 Corinthians 3:18-21
    18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. 20 And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain. 21 Therefore let no man glory in men.

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

Terms and Conditions for Submission of Comments

Terms and Conditions:terms and conditions

Because this world is becoming more evil by the minute and Discerning the World is coming under attack more often from people with some very nasty dispositions, we now have ‘Terms and Conditions for Submission of Comments‘ which you need to agree too before you can comment – this is to protect us and you when you comment on this website.  If you are not here to harm Discerning the World and it’s authors, please by all means comment, however if you are here to cause harm in any way, please don’t comment.

The following conditions does not mean that the authors of Discerning The World permit only opinions that are in agreement with us. This also does not mean that we fear dissenting opinions or ideas that are contrary to the beliefs that we hold (and/or that of the revealed Scriptures of the Holy Bible).

The following describes the Terms and Conditions applicable to your use of the “Comments” submission service at the Discerning the World website.

BY CLICKING THE “POST COMMENT” BUTTON FOR YOUR COMMENT, YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND ABIDE BY ALL OF THE RULES AND POLICIES SET FORTH HEREIN. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS, DO NOT SUBMIT YOUR COMMENT TO DISCERNING THE WORLD WEB SITE.

  1. Discerning the World owns and operates the DiscerningtheWorld.com site (the “Site”). Your use of the features on the Site allowing for submission of a “Comment” is subject to the following terms and conditions (the “Terms”). Discerning the World may modify these Terms at any time without notice to you by posting revised Terms on the Site. Your submission of a “Comment” to the Site following the modification of these Terms shall constitute your binding acceptance of and agreement to be bound by those modified Terms.
  2. By submitting a “Comment” you are accepting these Terms through your clicking of the “POST COMMENT” button.
  3. Discerning the World has the right, but not the obligation, to take any of the following actions, in Discerning the World’s sole unfettered discretion, at any time, and for any reason or no reason, without providing any prior notice:
    1. Restrict, suspend or terminate your ability to submit “Comments,” to the Site;
    2. Change, suspend or modify all or any part of the Site or the features thereof;
    3. Refuse or remove any material posted on, submitted to or communicated through the Site by you;
    4. Deactivate or delete any screen names, profiles or other information associated with you; or
    5. Alter, modify, discontinue or remove any comment off the Site.
  4. You agree that, when using or accessing the Site or any of the features thereof, you will not:
    1. Violate any applicable law or regulation;
    2. Interfere with or damage the Site, through hacking or any other means;
    3. Transmit or introduce to the Site or to other users thereof any viruses, cancel bots, Trojan horses, flood pings, denial of service attacks, or any other harmful code or processes;
    4. Transmit or submit harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, deceptive, fraudulent, obscene, indecent, vulgar, lewd, violent, hateful or otherwise objectionable content or material;
    5. Transmit or submit any unsolicited advertising, promotional materials, or spam;
    6. Stalk or harass any user or visitor to the Site; or
    7. Use the content or information available on the Site for any improper purpose.
  5. You retain the Copyright of any “Comment” you submit to Discerning the World. By submitting a “Comment” to Discerning the World, you agree to grant Discerning the World a irrevocable, non-exclusive, royalty-free, perpetual license to use the material or commentary that you have submitted, in any medium and in any manner that Discerning the World may, in its sole unfettered discretion, choose.
  6. By submitting a “Comment” to Discerning the World, you agree to comply with the following rules concerning such submissions:
    1.  You agree not to include in your “Comment”:
      1. Any false, defamatory, libelous, abusive, threatening, racially offensive, sexually explicit, obscene, harmful, vulgar, hateful, illegal, or otherwise objectionable content;
      2. Any content that may be seen as stalking or harassing of any other Site contributors;
      3. Any content that personally attacks an individual. (An example of a personal attack is posting negative comments about an individual in a way meant to demean that person. Note that posting your opinion about someone’s ideas, doctrine or actions is not a personal attack);
      4. Any content that discloses private details concerning any person, for eg., phone numbers that have not been made public, photos that are not in the public domain, residential address that is not public, ID numbers, Social Security numbers, email addresses that are not in the public domain, etc.;
      5. Any content that you know to be false, misleading, or fraudulent;
      6. Any use of profanity;
      7. Any content including advertisements or otherwise focused on the promotion of commercial events or businesses, or any request for or solicitation of money, goods, or services for private gain;
      8. Any content that contains software viruses or any other computer code, files or programs designed to interrupt, destroy or limit the functionality of any computer software or hardware or telecommunications equipment; or
      9. Any content directly or indirectly soliciting responses from minors (defined as anyone under 18 years of age).
  7. FAIR USE NOTICE:
    1. If any part of the “Comment” is not your original work, it is your responsibility to add the name of the third party, name the book with page number or a link (url) to the website where you obtained the information.
    2. Your “Comment” may contain Copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. You are however allowed to make such material available in your “Comment” in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.  This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this Site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
    3. If you wish to use copyrighted material from a website or any other medium for purposes to add to your “Comment” that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. (Fair Use means you may quote from copyrighted sources, but you may not publish the whole article, book, etc., in your “Comment”.)
  8. You are solely responsible for the “Comment” you upload, post, transmit or otherwise make available to others using this Web Site. Under no circumstances will Discerning the World be liable in any way for any “Comment” posted on or made available through this Site by you or any third party.
  9. You understand that all “Comments” on this Site are pre-screened or moderated. That means that every “Comment” needs to be approved by Discerning the World before it appears in the “Comments” section.  This is not an automatic process.  Discerning the World does this for SPAM reasons.
  10. Discerning the World has the right (but not the obligation) in their sole unfettered discretion to remove any “Comment” that is posted on or available through the Site. Without limiting the foregoing, Discerning the World has the right to remove any “Comment” that violates these Terms or is otherwise deemed objectionable by Discerning the World in its sole discretion.
  11. You understand that Discerning the World in their sole unfettered discretion is not obligated and can not be forced in any manner, be it legal or otherwise to remove any “Comment” that is posted on or made available through the Site by you.
  12. When submitting a “Comment,” you will be asked to provide your name and your email address. While Discerning the World does not object to your use of a pseudonym instead of your actual name, Discerning the World reserves the right, but not the obligation, to reject, change, disallow, or discontinue at any time any submission name that, in Discerning the World’s sole unfettered discretion, is objectionable or inappropriate for any reason. Discerning the World requires the submission of your email address, but Discerning the World warrants that it will not publish your email address to an outside third party without your consent.
  13. Discerning the World does not sell or rent your personal information to third parties for their marketing purposes. From time to time, Discerning the World may contact you personally via email. Notwithstanding the foregoing, you acknowledge and understand that the “Comments” feature of the Site is designed to permit users to post information and commentary for public review and comment and thus you hereby waive any expectation of privacy you may have concerning any likeness or information provided to the Site by you.
  14. You are solely responsible for your interactions with other users of or visitors to the Site.
    1. Discerning the World shall have the right, but not the obligation, to monitor interactions utilizing the “Comments” facility of the Site, between you and other users of or visitors to the Site. You acknowledge and agree that Discerning the World, or any third party shall not be, and you shall not seek to hold them, responsible for any harm or damage whatsoever arising in connection with your interaction with other users of or visitors to the Site.
    2. Discerning the World does not verify any information posted to or communicated via the “Comments” sections of the Site by users and does not guarantee the proper use of such information by any party who may have access to the information. You acknowledge and agree that Discerning the World does not assume, and shall not have, any responsibility for the content of messages or other communications sent or received by users of the Site.
  15. The Site contains content created by or on behalf of Discerning the World as well as content provided by third parties.
    1. Discerning the World does not control, and makes no representations or warranties about, any third party content, including such content that may be accessible directly on the Site or through links from the Site to third party sites.
    2. You acknowledge that, by viewing the Site or communications transmitted through the Site, you may be exposed to third party content that is false, offensive or otherwise objectionable to you or others, and you agree that under no circumstances shall Discerning the World be liable in any way, under any theory, for any third party content.
    3. You acknowledge and agree that the Site, and the contents thereof, is proprietary to Discerning the World and is protected by copyright. You agree that you will not access or use the Site or any of the content thereof for any reason or purpose other than your personal, non-commercial use.
    4. You agree that you will not systematically retrieve data or other content from the Site by any means, and you will not compile a database or directory of information extracted from the Site.
    5. You agree that you will not reproduce, distribute or make derivative works of the Site or any of the contents thereof without the express consent of Discerning the World.
    6. You hereby agree to indemnify, defend and hold harmless Discerning the World, its affiliates and licensees, and all of their officers, directors, employees, agents and representatives from and against any and all liabilities, losses, claims, damages, and expenses (including attorneys’ fees) in connection with any claim arising out of your use of the Site or violation of any of these Terms.

DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTY/LIMITATION OF LIABILITY.

  • YOU EXPRESSLY AGREE THAT USE OF THE SITE IS AT YOUR SOLE RISK. NEITHER DISCERNING THE WORLD, ITS AFFILIATES, NOR ANY OF THEIR RESPECTIVE EMPLOYEES, AGENTS, OR LICENSORS WARRANT THAT THE SITE WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED, TIMELY, SECURE OR ERROR FREE.
  • THE SITE IS PROVIDED ON AN “AS IS” BASIS WITHOUT WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF TITLE OR IMLPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
  • THIS DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY APPLIES TO ANY DAMAGES OR INJURY CAUSED BY ANY FAILURE OF PERFORMANCE, ERROR, OMISSION, INTERRUPTION, DELETION, DEFECT, DELAY, COMMUNICATION LINE FAILURE, THEFT OR DESTRUCTION OR UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO, ALTERATION OF OR USE, WHETHER FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, TORTIOUS BEHAVIOR, NEGLIGENCE OR UNDER ANY OTHER CAUSE OF ACTION. YOU SPECIFICALLY ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT DISCERNING THE WORLD SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR THE DEFAMATORY, OFFENSIVE OR ILLEGAL CONDUCT OF USERS OF THE SITE OR THIRD PARTIES, AND THAT THE RISK OF INJURY FROM THE FOREGOING RESTS ENTIRELY WITH THE YOU THE COMMENTER.
  • IN NO EVENT WILL DISCERNING THE WORLD, ITS AFFILIATES OR ANY OF THEIR RESPECTIVE EMPLOYEES, AGENTS OR LICENSORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES, EVEN IF THEY HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES, ARISING FROM, RELATING TO OR CONNECTED WITH THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE SITE OR ANY OTHER MATTER ARISING FROM, RELATING TO OR CONNECTED WITH THE SITE OR THESE TERMS.

16. These Terms constitute the entire agreement between Discerning the World and you with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersede any previous oral or written agreement between us with respect to such subject matter.

Thank you!

Hi/
 
Hi/
Bye/
 
Bye/
Yes/
 
Yes/
Smile/
 
Smile/
Wink/
 
Wink/
Grin/
 
Grin/
Laugh/
 
Laugh/
Up/
 
Up/
Perfect/
 
Perfect/
Clap/
 
Clap/
Hi5/
 
Hi5/
Yahoo/
 
Yahoo/
Think/
 
Think/
Wait/
 
Wait/
Check/
 
Check/
Read/
 
Read/
Better/
 
Better/
Cry/
 
Cry/
Sorry/
 
Sorry/
Shock/
 
Shock/
Faint/
 
Faint/
Ohno/
 
Ohno/
Scratch/
 
Scratch/
Unsure/
 
Unsure/
Dazed/
 
Dazed/
Thank/
 
Thank/