Theos-Talk Archives (June 2007 Message tt00034)

I'm very tolerant of Satanists.  They are some of my biggest fans!



Chuck the Heretic



http://www.geocities.com/c_cosimano 


-----Original Message-----
From: Cass Silva <silva_cass@yahoo.com>
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 7:35 pm
Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: Master Koot Hoomi on God






Hi Perry

But surely this doesn't mean tolerance and embracing diversity of false religions? Are we to be tolerant of satanists (if they truly exist) are we to be tolerant of cults that offer death as a reward?

I would have expected more from the Dalai Lama than this. Also religions into two types, one those that believe in a creator and those that don't - presumably he is talking about athiests?

Cass

plcoles1 <plcoles1@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
Hi All,
Last night I went to see the Dalai Lama when he spoke here in Perth 
on "Ethics for the new millennium" as part of that speech he 
mentioned that religions can be divided into two types, those that 
are theistic and those that have no concept of a God or Creator.

He emphasised the importance of having tolerance and embracing 
diversity by developing a deeper understanding of each tradition and 
respecting its differences.
Even if traditions have very different understandings and beliefs we 
need to practice loving kindness and tolerance.

Regards

Perry

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "danielhcaldwell" 
<danielhcaldwell@...> wrote:
>
> Master K.H. writes to Mr. Sinnett:
> 
> "And thus according to Mr. Massey's philosophical conclusion we 
have 
> no God? He is right -- since he applies the name to an extra-
cosmic 
> anomaly, and that we, knowing nothing of the latter, find -- each 
man 
> his God -- within himself in his own personal, and at the same 
time,
> -- impersonal Avalokiteswara...."
> Quoted from:
> http://theosociety.org/pasadena/mahatma/ml-82.htm
> 
> In another letter, KH writes:
> 
> "Pantheistic we may be called -- agnostic NEVER. If people are
> willing to accept and to regard as God our ONE LIFE immutable and
> unconscious in its eternity they may do so and thus keep to one 
more
> gigantic misnomer. But then they will have to say with Spinoza that
> there is not and that we cannot conceive any other substance than
> God . . . and thus become Pantheists . . . . who but a Theologian
> nursed on mystery and the most absurd super-naturalism can imagine 
a
> self existent being of necessity infinite and omnipresent outside 
the
> manifested boundless universe. The word infinite is but a negative
> which excludes the idea of bounds. It is evident that a being
> independent and omnipresent cannot be limited by anything which is
> outside of himself; that there can be nothing exterior to himself -
-
> not even vacuum, then where is there room for matter? for that
> manifested universe even though the latter limited. If we ask the
> theist is your God vacuum, space or matter, they will reply no. And
> yet they hold that their God penetrates matter though he is not
> himself matter. When we speak of our One Life we also say that it
> penetrates, nay is the essence of every atom of matter; and that
> therefore it not only has correspondence with matter but has all 
its
> properties likewise, etc. -- hence is material, is matter 
itself...."
> 
> ". . We are not Adwaitees, but our teaching respecting the one life
> is identical with that of the Adwaitee with regard to Parabrahm. 
And
> no true philosophically trained Adwaitee will ever call himself an
> agnostic, for he knows that he is Parabrahm and identical in every
> respect with the universal life and soul -- the macrocosm is the
> microcosm and he knows that there is no God apart from himself, no
> creator as no being. Having found Gnosis we cannot turn our backs 
on
> it and become agnostics."
> 
> ". . . We deny the existence of a thinking conscious God, on the
> grounds that such a God must either be conditioned, limited and
> subject to change, therefore not infinite, or (2) if he is
> represented to us as an eternal unchangeable and independent being,
> with not a particle of matter in him, then we answer that it is no
> being but an immutable blind principle, a law...."
> Quoted from:
> http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/mahatma/ml-10.htm
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------
> 
> Daniel
> http://hpb.cc
>

---------------------------------
Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! 
Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



 

________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]