I see Maharaji as a "Satguru", an enlightened soul, someone like Buddha, someone who is leading me from darkness to light (many Buddhists don't even believe in God), someone with a very special gift from God. I believe in God, but no, I don't see Maharaji as "God Incarnate". I do not have that concept of Maharaji. I believe God is within every human being.

You're just sounding stupider and stupider, GOK.  I don't mean that in a nasty way.  It's just true, that's all. The same way a flashlight gets dim when the batteries fail, you're just sounding dimmer.  Here's why.  Rawat calls himself God:

Guru is the highest manifestation of God.

Remember, Guru is God

You are my Lord, you are my God, you are my Father, you are my Mother.' One has said, 'Twameva mata, chapita twameva' that 'You are my God; you are my Father. You are my God; you are my Father.

I bow down to the lotusfeet of my Guru Maharaji who is the ocean of mercy and is actually Hari (God) himself in human form.

But you then throw up your own concept about what God means, omniscient for instance, only to say that you don't think Rawat's that so therefore he couldn't have claimed to be that.

This is just plain retarded my friend.  [Watch, the monitors are going to boot me off the forum now!  Okay, I'll be nice.  It's not retarded, it's just plain stupid.  Is that better? ]

NO ONE CARES WHAT YOU THINK "GOD" MEANS!  THE POINT IS THAT RAWAT CLAIMED HE WAS IT NO MATTER WHAT!!! 

Oops, was I shouting? Iiiiiiiii'mmmmmmm sooooorrrrrrrryyyyy ....

It's just so frustrating, GOK, and you're not helping in the least.  It's like being in the passsenger seat next to a drunk driver.  You keep forcing us to grab the wheel of logic because you've got your eyes closed.  How can you avoid the obvious truth that Rawat claimed to be God when the words are right in front of you?  Look, for argument's sake, maybe Rawat himself has no f***king idea what the word means.  Just assume that for argument's sake for a second.  Maybe he thinks it means short.  So he says it -- that's the point, the very one EV's denying like crazy, the same one you're denying too -- and all you can say is that, well, in reality he's not short so how could he have said he was?  See how bizarre that is?  But then, to make it worse, you also claim that, unlike us, you have no concept of what short means.  But if that's true, dude, how can you say the word doesn't fit him?  This is much, much worse than trying to have your cake and eat it too.  It's like having your cake, eating it, pretending there is no such thing as cake ....

It's weird, is what it is.

Now, are you going to answer any of my earlier questions or not?