Theos-Talk Archives (March 2004 Message tt00437)

Morten, you wrote:

"I would say that any fanatical belief in a woman 
who calimed that she might make faults from time to time,
and a fanatical belief in Mahatma Letters, which from 
time to time was not that true in their contnet --- 
would be a very bad idea !"

Morten, WHO but you is suggesting that anyone has
a FANATICAL BELIEF in HPB or the Mahatma Letters?

Fanatical is defined as:

"marked by excessive enthusiasm and often intense 
uncritical devotion."

Who on Theos-Talk has suggested such a fanatical attitude?

But when HPB and the Mahatmas make not just one statement 
to the effect but in fact make numerous statements over
a period of many years, why should one who has good reasons
to believe in the said Mahatmas and HPB as well as their
teachings not be lead to the reasonable conclusion that what
they write on a particular subject (do adepts marry?)carries
great weight? In such a case, this is not FANATICAL, IS IT??

HPB and the Mahatmas never claimed to be infallible 
but why bring up this issue of infallibility every time
one wants to disagree with what HPB or the Mahatmas teach.

I do not believe in the infallibility of HPB and the Mahatmas
but I do believe they were knowledgeable and that their
statements can be considered reliable especially when they
repeat them time and time again and even give good reasons
for making such statements.

Do you bring up the issue of FANATICAL BELIEF as a red 
herring (ie. as something that distracts 
attention from the real issue).

Furthermore, why not ALSO ask if Mrs. Bailey may have 
been sadly mistaken when she wrote what she did 
about Masters and marriage? Why not ALSO bring 
up FANATICAL BELIEF concerning Alice Bailey?

The main issue I was bringing forth is simply 
that Alice Bailey teaches many DIFFERENT teachings 
when compared to what Blavatsky and the Mahatmas 
originally taught.

Daniel