Re: Theos-World "slanders quashed and settled"
Feb 07, 2002 12:16 PM
by Larry F Kolts
The arguement I always thought was interesting goes something like:
The Bible is the infallible word of God
How do you know that?
Why, it says so right in the Bible!
He who thinks he has no faults had just found the first one.
On Thu, 7 Feb 2002 11:49:32 -0500 "Bill Meredith" <email@example.com>
> Hey Paul,
> Yes I agree with your assessment below. I am interested methods
> reclaiming one's freedom from the rigidity of thought that seems to
> under every rock.
> I went to an Uncle's funeral yesterday, and as expected the preacher
> more time trying to save souls for Jesus than he did in a dignified
> of my Uncle' passage. As I listened to this self-proclaimed
> preacher I was struck repeatedly by the tangled web of
> contradictions that
> he had come to accept as truth.
> I will give but one example: He made the following remarks within
> minutes of each other:
> "God is almighty and all knowing."
> "God does not intend for any man to burn in hell."
> "Men who die without first accepting the Lord will burn in hell
> "God loves each of us."
> How can one not notice the contradictions? Now I am aware of
> interpretations of these quotes that render them less contradictory
> maybe even esoterically supportive. The preacher was not preaching
> esoterically. I know that if I start sending in commentary to this
> that contains evident contrary conditions, I want someone to point
> them out
> to me. Not because I like being proven wrong, but because I want to
> tabs on where my thinking is taking me.
> Keep up these kinds of posts. They help me to see the process I use
> select words and phrases.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "kpauljohnson" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: <email@example.com>
> Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 9:44 AM
> Subject: Theos-World "slanders quashed and settled"
> > --- In theos-talk@y..., <dalval14@e...> wrote:
> > > So far. as I read those posts, they have on the main, repeated
> > > slanders that were quashed and settled years ago.
> > This phrase is telling, and provides an opportunity to discuss
> > principles without reference to personalities. What Dallas
> > calls "slanders that were quashed and settled years ago" I and
> > others would call "questions that remain unresolved despite a
> > years of Theosophical and anti-Theosophical polemics, and which
> > now receiving long overdue historical examination." Is this a
> > of fact, or of opinion? Are there not objective criteria that
> > determine whether an issue has really been settled years ago or
> > Dallas may wish that these "slanders" had been "quashed" but even
> > cursory glance at recent writings on HPB shows that the issues in
> > question remain quite alive.
> > The temptation to *pretend* that a controversy had been settled
> > ago, even when it is abundantly clear that it had not, is
> > understandable. It allows believers to file the most hot-button
> > issues away in a drawer marked "not even worth thinking about."
> > For example, some Mormons would claim that anyone who says that
> > Book of Mormon is not an ancient document but rather a 19th
> > production is slandering Joseph Smith. Christian Scientists would
> > say that anyone who says that Mrs. Eddy got a great deal of her
> > system from P.P. Quimby is slandering her. And so on down the
> > Some Mormons have written works that purport to prove the
> > of the Book of Mormon. Some Christian Scientists have written
> > biographies that attempt to dismiss the influence of Quimby on
> > And some members of these groups would say that any non-Mormon or
> > CS who raises these issues from the POV of historical scholarship
> > merely repeating slanders that were quashed and settled years ago.
> > think that word "quashed" speaks volumes about the mindset of such
> > believers. Dallas goes on to say:
> > On the basis
> > > of fairness and accuracy in reporting, I have always understood
> > > that true scholarship was impersonal. Hence in the service of
> > > accuracy, such true scholarship reveals every side of a question
> > > as a matter of course.
> > Which means that religious believers who declare the topics
> > by historical researchers "slanders quashed and settled years ago"
> > (despite abundant evidence to the contrary) lack the impersonality
> > required for true scholarship.
> > If this is not done, then the research is
> > > either fragmentary and unfinished, or it is opinionated, and as
> > > such, it does not yet deserve the designation of "history."
> > >
> > All historical research is fragmentary and unfinished. All
> > historical works include opinion. There is not a finite number
> > of "sides" past which we can say there aren't any more left;
> > will keep looking at new sides as long as the subject in question
> > attracts new historical research.
> > PJ
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application