Theos-Talk Archives (February 2002 Message tt00426)

Ha! But I always suspected you had an open mind! Now you've given me
*proof* :)

regards,
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry F Kolts" <llkingston2@juno.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 5:21 PM
Subject: Re: Theos-World Re to Larry - Proof


> Yes, Jerry, I see your point and really agree more than it seems.
>
> I guess the problem really is that word "proof". As I was using it I was
> thinking of "evidence" vs a sense of absolute proof. That's why I use the
> word "belief" instead"f "Knowledge". When we believe, we exercize some
> degree of "faith" (a very Christian term, but i know of none better)
> Belief, by definition is non provable. If it was then we would "know"
> with a surety. But we don't. I quess we all bring a bunch of vocabulary
> bagage with other. It's good to talk about the terms. You've convinced me
> that 'proof" not the word to use in these discussions.
>
> You see bill, some of use can change our minds because of these posts. Or
> a least our way of looking at something.
>
> Larry
>
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2002 05:19:12 +0800 "Gerald Schueler"
> <gschueler@earthlink.net> writes:
> > <<<Hi Jerry and Morten,
> > I think I understand what Morten is trying to say. >>>
> >
> > Hi Larry. I think I understand it too, only I don't agree with it. I
> > have spiritual experiences too, but how can I prove, even to myself,
> > that they are any more or less genuine that my normal waking state?
> > Are dreams real? Well, they seem so at the time. Why cannot the same
> > be true for spiritual experiences? My hypothesis is that they
> > cannot. We all like to think that the upper spiritual planes are
> > more real than the lower material planes. But Blavatsky tells us
> > that they are really the same thing, and I find her statement to be
> > intuitively true.
> >
> >
> > <<<If one has a spiritual experience, that experience constitutes a
> > proof to the individual who had the experience, but not to anyone
> > else.>>>
> >
> > Here is exatly the problem that I am trying to get across. There is
> > absolutely no "proof." If a drunk sees pink elephants, and touches
> > them, and talks to them, then he will be convinced that he can
> > "prove" their existence. But existence and non-existence are not
> > provable. It is the word "proof" that bothers me so much. Blavatsky
> > used it a lot, but it is no longer applicable in today's world.
> >
> >
> >
> > <<<This would however prove only the
> > existence of a spiritual realm and say nothing about the
> > truth/falsehood of Theosophy per se.>>>
> >
> > No, it would only "prove" that spiritual experiences are possible
> > for us human beings.
> >
> >
> > <<<Let me go a little deeper using a different example.
> > In my Mormon days I often took part in " laying on on hands for the
> > Healing of the Sick" and other such Mormon ordinances. I had over my
> > 35 years some very interesting experiences. Many of these constitute
> > for me a verification of the reality of "faith healing". Others
> > expanded that beyond the reasonable. At the regular first Sunday
> > testimony meetings it was not uncommon for several "Molly Mormons"
> > (as a few of us called the uncompromising, blind faith, female
> > members) to get
> > up and relate a healing experience and then to go on and say that
> > was further proof that "The Church" was "true". I would shake my
> > head and roll my eyes and think, NO NO NO you silly girl, it only
> > confirms the reality of faith healing. But some were even more
> > fundimentalist in their attitude. When I would argue my case they
> > would say something like "you
> > know it's only the Mormon priesthood that can do this!" And I would
> > say "but what of all the other denominations that practice faith
> > healing?"
> > And they would look me in the eye and say" Brother, you know that if
> > they do that they are either lying about it or doing it by the power
> > of Satan.
> > You know that don't you?" And I would bite my tongue and mutter to
> > myself "Yeah, right" Yet in spite of all that nonsense, I still
> > believe in the
> > reality of the power of faith, though I never did but into their
> > exclusivity model.>>>
> >
> > I come from a Christian Science background, and can relate to what
> > you say. Healing is the foundation stone of Christian Science, and
> > the fact that it does work on occassion is their "proof" that
> > Christian Science is truth. I healed myself many times, and fell
> > into this idea too. Nowdays I like to think that my view is a bit
> > more mature. So when I hear Theosophists saying much the same thing,
> > ie proof for this and proof for that, I can't help but speak out.
> > There is simply no "proof" for anything at all. It is a lousy word,
> > and one that modern science has discarded, and one that Theosophists
> > should discard as well.
> >
> > Jerry S.
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
> Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
> Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
> http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>