Theos-Talk Archives (April 2006 Message tt00840)

Hallo all,

My views are:

1. Jesutis, the Vatican and The Christian Coalition

Aehmmm...
There is no religion higher than the Truth.
Not, that we need to disagree, but...

Chuck wrote:
" To the best of my knowledge Daniel is
not now, nor ever has been an agent of either the Jesuits or Opus Dei."

Sufilight answers:
Allow me say this in a wellmeant and friendly manner:

I sometimes wonder what group of "heretical agents" you are belonging to 
Chuck?  :-)
I find it to be true, that When one is getting influenced by The Christian 
Coalition,
then the "Jesuits" are not far behind. The question is just how much one is 
being influenced.
Not only dead-letters in that.

For instance:
Merely speculating about what sort of group Daniel Caldwell belong to,
will not help us much.
I say, that Daniels website badly needs something to help the various 
"compassionate
heretical groups" social situation, when we consider the "jesutical" 
bible-agenda.
Right now I see that the situation is deterioration fast, and those beginner 
seekers, scholars,
christian scholars figthing consciously or unconsciously against dead-letter 
insanity of the Bible,
(a book filled with faults, mistranslations and mistakes), are really 
struggling when going through
Daniel Caldwells website.
I do not find myself speculating about this.

(Even John De Saints has trouble, with his angle or angel of presentation, 
although a lot of info
on the Jesutis are available there. But Daniel's angle on the jesuits 
really leaves
the Seekers in the dark.
- And permit me a few words of advice to the theosophical webmasters:
Please seek to makes the text on each page less wide, only about 
half-screen-size would do
much better. It helps the beginner seekers to read the text more easily. 
This is basic knowledge
about web-usability. )


So no worries about The Christian Coalition and related groups ???
"When I said during my presidential bid that I would only bring Christians 
and Jews
into the government, I hit a firestorm. `What do you mean?' the media 
challenged me.
`You're not going to bring atheists into the government?
How dare you maintain that those who believe in the Judeo-Christian values 
are
better qualified to govern America than Hindus and Muslims?'
My simple answer is, `Yes, they are.'"
-from Pat Robertson's "The New World Order," page 218.

Blavatsky was quite right.
How much did W. Q. Judge, K. Tingley, Purucker, Crosbie, Annie Besant and 
Leadbeater etc... write
about the Jesuits when compared to H. P. Blavatsky.
So Please, do not underestimate the old woman, named HPB!
Not that any of you do, but just try absorb the point I am throwing at you.


2. Too much specualation and too much intuition bashing

Bruce wrote in a recent email here at Theos-talk:
"The enemies do not need to prove anything, they
need only keep the allegations alive."

I agree. We ever learn from our enemies.
The enemies do often stimulate speculation on behalf of the stimulation of 
the intuition.
Debates here at Theos-talk, which only seek to provoke speculation and not 
the
opening up of the intuition, are sometimes equal to keeping the Seekers down 
and away
from spiritual development. The reader could ponder on this.

Just try to count how many times Blavatsky mentioned the word Jesuit or 
Jesuits or jesuitical.


3. The Third Volume of the Secret Doctrine
The third volume was printed by Annie Besant in the physical and NOT by 
Blavatsky.
Annie Besants level of wisdom in 1897 was not the same as Blavatsky's in 
1891.
Blavatsky would never use Esoteric Section material in The Secret Doctrine 
volume III
to such a degree.
The reason being, that this would certainly not be compassionate to publish 
the same or
nearly the 100% same content to a totally different audience. Well, unless a 
higher purpose
justified it. This purpose, I somehow havn't discovered yet.
The volumes I and II of The Secret Doctrine were both edited and changed in 
their content
up until even few weeks before their publication. Saying that volume III of 
The Secret Doctrine,
didn't need at least the same wise and careful changes I hold to be a 
quesitonable and in fact
a irresponsible view.
And I think we should let it all rest there.

4. The split between W. Q. Judge and Annie Besant.
It happened due to karma. The Masters could easily have intervened much 
more - and
also intervened through Blavatsky before she died or by themselves have 
pointed much more clearly out who,
their chosen successor and agent was.
They did not do that. The reason was, that none was suitable or spiritually 
needed because
of the collective karma of the TS and the planet etc...
The death of W. Q. Judge was part of the karmic situation, because he 
somehow
- well somehow -  lacked the needed
understanding of the "Jesuits" and their dangerous activities to the 
society. (Please do
not take the word Jesuits too litterally, when I use it. Yet they are also 
involved.)

These were my views.


from
M. Sufilight with peace and love...


----- Original Message ----- 
From: <Drpsionic@aol.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 4:40 AM
Subject: Re: Theos-World Theosophists Are No Jesuits


> In a message dated 4/27/2006 3:10:10 PM Central Standard Time,
> carlosaveline@terra.com.br writes:
>
> Perhaps  in the Vatican the system is different and some people get 
> nervous
> to see  diversity among sincere students.
>
>
>
> I think it would be easier to take some of these arguments seriously if 
> you
> would stop referring to the Vatican.  To the best of my knowledge Daniel 
> is
> not now, nor ever has been an agent of either the Jesuits or Opus Dei.
>
> It is rather confusing the issue.
>
> Chuck the Heretic
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links