Theos-Talk Archives (February 2008 Message tt00235)

If all what you say is true, why is there any need for a LCC?
All they have in such a positive LCC you mention you can get in theosophical groups where christianity is emphasized.

Why this need for being inside a Christian Church and having a male priest with a silly and very expensivly produced hat?



M. Sufilight


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: plcoles1 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 1:59 PM
  Subject: Re: Theos-World LCC's place in Christian Movement



  Hi Morton,
  All I can say is that the LCC offers something within the Christian 
  tradition that is positive in that it promotes freedom of belief and 
  it genuinely embraces other traditions as valid pathways and does not 
  claim Christianity as being the only valid pathway; this is in itself 
  to my mind something worthwhile.

  I don't think it is fair to pigeonhole all the people within the LCC 
  as "a group of well meaning persons, who lives in a narrowminded 
  christianized thought-pattern".

  My experience has not been that, your experience must be different to 
  mine, individually in some cases in my experience it may be true but 
  I would disagree that this is generally true.

  Many people including myself resonate with Christian symbolism just 
  as some resonate with the Buddhist etc, I don't think this is in 
  anyway showing an antipathy for other cultures in fact my experience 
  has been that most LCC people are equally comfortable with and 
  interested in most religious traditions.

  Regards

  Perry

  --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Morten Nymann Olesen" <global-
  theosophy@...> wrote:
  >
  > To all readers
  > 
  > My views are:
  > 
  > Dear Perry, I do consider you below words as very interesting.
  > I do however as a theosophical seeker ask myself if what is and was 
  being taught at LCC was Gupta-Vidya and not a mere dualistic doctrine 
  about a male "holy ghost" so to speak.
  > 
  > We know, that Gnosis is the same as Gupta-Vidya and Atma-Vidya 
  according to theosophical terminology.
  > So when I lean over and so to speak use my x-ray lenses on the LCC 
  and its activities, the only thing I see is a group of wellmeaning 
  persons, who lives in a narrowminded christianized thought-pattern 
  and not in the Gnosis world of multicultural wisdom and activity. It 
  is then I conclude, that the world of Gupta-Vidya, the real Gnosis, 
  is theosophy and not the fake narrowminded one the LCC undertakes and 
  supports. And I say this in all friendliness.
  > 
  > Yes, The LCC is a path. But it is not a multicultural one. I guess 
  it is a path given to those who dislike anything multicultural but a 
  Christian outlook upon the world. You may prove be wrong if you are 
  able to do so.
  > And a non-multicultural outlook upon the world we all know the sad 
  consequences of.
  > 
  > The fact is that LCC have never clearly demonstrated the huge 
  difference there is between its own doctrines, whether it is the 
  theosophical doctrines, and the doctrines of the Jesuits (or "False 
  Christians" is perhaps a more precise use of words). When LCC will do 
  that I might consider them a solid alternative. When not, they are no 
  alternative at all in my anti-Jesuit worldview.
  > 
  > H. P. Blavatsky wrote the following article, which the LCC camp as 
  far as I know not often contemplates:
  > "THEOSOPHY OR JESUITISM?"
  > http://www.blavatsky.net/blavatsky/arts/TheosophyOrJesuitism.htm
  > 
  > - - - - - - -
  > 
  > I came to think about, whether the altar bread used are ecological 
  like it was at C. W. Leadbeater's time.
  > I bet it today is bread based on a pesticid and hormon-regulated 
  crop, but I might be wrong. Here could at least be done an effort, if 
  the Jesuit issue is too tough to swallow. :-)
  > 
  > 
  > I do hope I have not shaken your worldview too much?
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > M. Sufilight
  > 
  > 
  > ----- Original Message ----- 
  > From: plcoles1 
  > To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  > Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 4:03 AM
  > Subject: Theos-World LCC's place in Christian Movement
  > 
  > 
  > Hello All,
  > I just thought I'd like to add a few comments that perhaps try 
  and 
  > look at the Liberal Catholic Church as a part of the Christian 
  > movement rather than the theosophical movement.
  > I have come to rethink over this issue and perhaps the below 
  points 
  > are worth considering.
  > 
  > Christianity is a vastly diverse tradition.
  > 
  > In my opinion the LCC fills a much needed niece today and 
  probably 
  > more so when the LCC came into being, as with all groups they 
  have 
  > their own problems and internal issues that need to be worked 
  > through over time; it does however also offer people who feel a 
  > leaning towards mystical Christianity a place to explore it, in a 
  by 
  > on large non dogmatic fashion.
  > 
  > While following a fairly set ritual practice it does not demand 
  > anybody to believe anything and permits any body to partake of 
  Holy 
  > Communion at its altars.
  > 
  > It teaches Christianity as one path but not the only one, it 
  > certainly does not teach that a person who is not a Christian 
  will 
  > not find "Salvation" but rather teaches that the Sacraments are 
  > tools that can help rather than being essentials and that there 
  are 
  > many roads up the mountainside.
  > 
  > CWL and Wedgwood took out all reference to hell fire and 
  damnation 
  > in the liturgy.
  > 
  > If we get too focused in picking things to pieces sometimes we 
  can 
  > miss the positive aspects that there may be to find in something.
  > 
  > The LCC is one of the few mystical churches in the world today 
  > surely this has a place and if people find this kind of mystical 
  > practice helpful who are we to sit in judgement, every person is 
  on 
  > their own spiritual journey and each person who participates in 
  any 
  > kind of ritual / spiritual practice has their own motives and way 
  of 
  > processing.
  > 
  > Regards
  > 
  > Perry
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
  >



   

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