Theos-Talk Archives (July 2008 Message tt00348)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Cass Silva <silva_cass@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, athiest in terms of a personal anthropormorphic god. 
According to the Masters, God as a Spirit is a gigantic absurdity.
> Cass 

Here is the dictionary meaning of the word anthropormorphic.
"ascribing human form or attributes to a being or thing not human,
esp. to a deity"
As I have considerable contact with Christians, I asked some of the
Christian teachers and pastors about what idea of God is according to
Christianity. They said God is omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient
creator of the universe. They did not consider God anthropomorphic. 
That means God as understood by these Christians is close to
Theosophical understanding of God. 
If that is so, Blavatsky's writing against Christianity does not seem
to be correct. 
Not only that if Blavatsky's position that God does not exist is
accepted, then it will be totally opposite of what Hinduism and Indian
spirituality teaches. It is because Hindu idea of God is same as
Christian idea of God i.e. "God is omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient
creator of the universe" 
Blavatsky's position that God does not exist is great sin according to
Hinduism, Christianity, Islam and Judaism. 
If Blavatsky wanted to say that God's nature is different, she should
have said "idea of God as understood by some people is wrong, God
exists, but his nature is different from what some Christians understand" 
Instead of taking this position, Blavatsky conveyed the idea that God
does not exist, which is another huge mistake. As many of the
followers of Blavatsky are getting misled into believing that God does
not exist, it will be better that Blavatsky's teaching should not be
promoted. 

Best
Anand Gholap