Theos-Talk Archives (July 2009 Message tt00350)

"The God of the theologians is simply an imaginary power, un loup garou as d'Holbach expressed it - a power which has nver yet manifested itself. Our chief aim is to delivery humanity of this nightmare, to teach man virtue for its own sake, and to walk in life relying on himself instead of leaning on a theological crutch, that for countless ages was the direct cause of nearly all human misery. If people are will 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; or as that famous and unfortunate philosopher says in his fourteenth proposition, "praeter Deum neque dari neque concipi potest substantia" and thus become Panthiests......who but a Theologian nursed on mystery and the most absurd supernaturalism can imagine a self-existing
 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 were is there room for matter?for that manifested universe even though the latter (be) 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.
Â
When we speak of our One Life we also that 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.
Â
ML88 p 270-271


>
>From: Morten Nymann Olesen <global-theosophy@stofanet.dk>
>To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
>Sent: Wednesday, 22 July, 2009 1:55:07 AM
>Subject: Re: Theos-World Personal God of Christians is true God, Blavatsky was wrong
>
>Â 
>Dear Anand and friends
>
>My views are:
>
>The theological Christians call their God words like Dieu, Got, Jumala, Dios, Deus etc.
>Our God we for instance more often call Parabrahm than God so that people not get confused and think, that our Deity is theological Christian one. Our Deity "is" beyond time and thought and without personal attributes, schemed by theological Church Fathers. Avatars are not Deities to the theosophist. They are simply just our more wise friends, like the rest of the universe.
>
>Dear Anand, I wonder IF - you demand that I and others should respect a personal Christian God, who daily blows life into new-born babies created through rape, childmolesting, and other evil schemes? If, so I will have to reject you views on the spot! 
>Do you understand me?
>
>Dear Anand, you talk about what you merely believe - and NOT what you know - to be the truth about Krishna and the events surrounding him. As an avatar Krishna never preached a - belief - in a personal God or a God similar to the Christians. (Please do not read the non-original Bhagavad Gita using the dead letter.) We talk about what we know, and seek to prove it. In the below I have rewritten the words by H. P. Blavatsky in her beginners book on theosophy - "The Key to Theosophy", p. 61
>
>Rewritten a bit from H. P. Blavatsky in her "The Key to Theosophy", p. 61:
>1.
>The God of the Christians, the Father of Jesus, and the Creator: the Biblical God of Moses. "We do not believe in such a God. We reject the idea of a personal, or an extra-cosmic and anthropomorphic God, who is but the gigantic shadow of man, and not of man at his best, either. The God of theology, we say â and prove it â is a bundle of contradictions and a logical impossibility. Therefore, we will have nothing to do with him."
>
>"This Christian God is called by his devotees a male, infinite and absolute, is he not? "
>
>2.
>If your answer is Yes:
>Then, if ..."infiniteâi. e., limitlessâ and especially if absolute, how can he have a form, and be a creator of anything? Form implies limitation, and a beginning as well as an end; and, in order to create, a Being must think and plan. How can the ABSOLUTE be supposed to thinkâi. e., to have any relation whatever to that which is limited, finite, and conditioned? This is a philosophical, and a logical absurdity. Even the Hebrew Kabala rejects such an idea, and therefore, makes of the one and the Absolute Deific Principle an infinite Unity called Ain-Soph.* In order to create, the Creator has to become active; and as this is impossible for ABSOLUTENESS, the infinite principle had to be shown becoming the cause of evolution (not creation) in an indirect way âi.e., through the emanation from itself (another absurdity, due this time to the translators of the Kabala)â of the Sephiroth. "
>.......
>"We deny it [thought] to the ABSOLUTE, since thought is something limited and conditioned. But you evidently forget that in philosophy absolute unconsciousness is also absolute consciousness, as otherwise it would not be absolute. "
>http://www.phx- ult-lodge. org/aKEY. htm#p61
>
>- - -
>3.
>The Bible - Deuteronomy Chapter 5 says also in The Ten Commandments:
>"Thou shalt not make to thy self a graven thing, nor the likeness of any things, that are in heaven above, or that are in the earth beneath, or that abide in the waters under the earth. Thou shalt not adore them, and thou shalt not serve them. For I am the Lord thy God,"...
>http://www.newadven t.org/bible/ deu005.htm# vrs5
>
>(A sidenote: The movie "The Ten Commandments" , 1956, was directed by Cecil B. de Mille. A more unofficial advisor to this movie was no other than Baird T. Spalding, one of the co-inventors of early television. Baird T. Spalding was author of the 5-6 books named "Life and Teaching of the Masters of the Far East")
>
>There is also a huge difference between the Christian's personal creator God and the theosophical Emanation-theories.
>
>Anand, I think that I now have documented, that your idea about a Personal God is a logical absurdity and a false one.
>
>Now, I might be wrong, so I ask: What are your views?
>
>M. Sufilight
>
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: Anand 
>To: theos-talk@yahoogro ups.com 
>Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 3:16 PM
>Subject: Theos-World Personal God of Christians is true God, Blavatsky was wrong
>
>Blavatsky's criticism of personal God of Christians is wrong. It is born out of ignorance of spiritual realities. When Krishna took birth in physical body, he called himself God. All his devotees had personal relationship with this God, whom they called Krishna. When Jesus spoke, he referred God as Father. Again his devotees had personal relationship with God. If we study different devotional traditions around the world, we find that in most of these traditions, God had personal relationship with devotees. Making God personal is very nature of devotion. This is how the path of devotion works. So Blavatsky's attacks on personal God of Christians is wrong.
>Best
>Anand Gholap
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Access Yahoo!7 Mail on your mobile. Anytime. Anywhere.
Show me how: http://au.mobile.yahoo.com/mail

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