Theos-Talk Archives (July 2009 Message tt00386)

Dear Frank

My views are:

I suggest:
Please hold your horses a bit Frank, and try to seek a more polite tone of voice.

The generel idea with this forum is to exactly allow a free exchange og views just like H. P. Blavatsky in her time allowed priests, various philosophers, and Spiritist to raise their voices.

Blavatsky even mailed a number of persons to be of service and help with her views.
Sometimes I wonder how many unregistered letters, there can be found in someones attic.


M. Sufilight

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Frank Reitemeyer 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 12:58 PM
  Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: Personal God of Christians is true God, Blavatsky was wrong


    You write a lot of idiotic nonsense.
  Blavatsky never declared Parabram a personal god.
  She was also not a feminist and had no father-complex.

  Your gossips and slanders are free inventions.

  And of course it is not fundamentalist and dogmatic when the contradictions and perversions of the most fundamentalist and dogmatic religion is attacked.

  Your mind is much twisted, as if you and Anand have taken lessions in pervert thinking in an Indian Jesuit school.

  I wonder, what people like Antonio, Anand or you are doing here in a theosophical forum, when you have no good will for theosophy nor have any basic knowledge nor you don't want to learn anything, but spread your twisted mistaken interpretations like a Christian missionary in the Jungle.

  Why are you bothered so much wiht theosophy and theosophists and let them not alone with it and you stick on your philosophy and don't intermix it wiht theosophy nor run it under false flag.

  Frank

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: opetha 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 2:53 PM
  Subject: Theos-World Re: Personal God of Christians is true God, Blavatsky was wrong

  I totally agree. Blavatski herself chose a personal God called "parabrahm", but this type of thinking is always apparent in fundamentalist thinking.

  It is that old difference between realism and nominalism, part of the chosen God is a nominal dogma, but the other half is owing to an inner projection. People can project a precious inner content on an outer image, but Blavatski wont let Christians do this upon their God--total fundamental, dogmatic, nominalist thinking on her helf. She never did a days yoga in her life and has a father-complex like so many feminists.

  It's a shame there was never a good western teacher who wasn't unconsciously materialist at the same time. 

  G. L.

  --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Anand" <AnandGholap@...> wrote:
  >
  > 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]



  

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