Theos-Talk Archives (July 2009 Message tt00395)

I do not see your guys problem?
The Buddha, as all Buddha's do, mastered his self and therefore became a coöperative personality in Nature, because He became Mature.
Gods are created by the human mind, but a human cannot even create a flower....
World of T.A.K.
G.O.D. just means: Generation Organisation Destruction and is a cosmic Principle in Nature without beginning nor end...

--- On Fri, 7/24/09, opetha <opetha@yahoo.ca> wrote:

From: opetha <opetha@yahoo.ca>
Subject: Theos-World Re: Personal God of Christians is true God, Blavatsky was wrong
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, July 24, 2009, 8:12 PM

Hi Frank,

Thank you for your warm-hearted reply.

"If you have somebody before you who talks idiotic nonsense [...] and give words a special sense,then you are sure you have an idiot before you" = nominalist thinking

This is the difference which doesn't go down well with you. I have no oustide teacher who uses "words" of persuasion, but you have Blavatski as your avatar who does. She over-values astral phenomena and not the graceful dharma. So I refute your outer-God/teacher but you cannot see my inner God and cannot refute it.

I admit that "nominalism" and "idealism" sound like in-house statutes from some kind of doctrine I have, but they are given names for what seperates all religous arguments, and you'd do good to learn them (advaita). 

"[...] you know that you are your worst enemy"

You're just disowning a truth here which applies to everyone and put it onto me. Karma is our worst enemy. Mars in Gemini may be attacking both of us today, so it is BOTH our worst enemies. If you differentiate the karma from the person, and the circumference of this moving karma from that point in the middle, then you can hopefully look beyond a lot of the prejudice we throw at others (or outsiders). Unless you differentiate that then you'll certainly be your worst enemy. = idealist thinking

"You have not one iota control over your psyche, nor your mind"

This is just plane insult, you have no proof of this, its just egotistic pride on your half. I have a LOT to control for one who is born with accursed karma. It is the sort of wrathful thing Blavatski or Mohammed would say to Christians, and her personality is contagious and not anything else like Atma (religion of the Ego/information).

"I guess it is because you live under the horror and terror of a personal god, who vampires your soul"

There's no such thing as a God that causes pain to its believer, it is usually just atheist rhetoric to say so. "Horror", "Terror", "Vampire", these words came from your consciousness and not mine.

"I have no idea what do you want in a theosophical forum, except steel our time and troll us"

Your right, I wanted to troll on a bit. Best I keep out of the commune and practice alone. But I wish you well.

G. L.
 




--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Reitemeyer" <ringding2009@...> wrote:
>
> if you have somebody before you who talks idiotic nonsense and can't explain it in a rationale manner and instead tries to psychologize you and give words a special sense, then you are sure you have an idiot before you.
> When you know that you are your worst enemy, then why you defend yourself?
> 
> When you believe that defense of doctrine is false, why are you in theosophical forum?
> 
> You have not one iota control over your psyche, nor your mind.
> 
> I guess it is because you live under the horror and terror of a personal god, who vampires your soul.
> 
> Better you join a psychological or Christian forum or something else.
> 
> I have no idea what do you want in a theosophical forum, except steel our time and troll us.
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: opetha 
> To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 5:24 PM
> Subject: Theos-World Re: Personal God of Christians is true God, Blavatsky was wrong
> 
> 
>   Hi,
> 
> Just as I said. Listen to the wrath in your voice. A Muslim says the same thing to a Chistian. Justify "idiot nonsense".
> 
> If you knew your normal human psychology you'd see easily that Blavatski, Fred Phelps, Khoot Humi, (and hopefully one day yourself) have this wrathful and selfish uprighteousness. You are just surviving in the western world like all of us. Choose your doctrine, but don't fight for it, you'll just be your own worst enemy.
> 
> What I said is a bit deep for fundamentlaists to understand. Its like an atheist trying to teach creationists Darwin. The psychology of nominal verus ideal thinking has to be differentiated first.
> 
> Nymmen was right in telling you to "hold your horses", you just proved you have no personal OR absolute God in your life.
> 
> G. L.
> 
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Reitemeyer" <ringding2009@> wrote:
> >
> > 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]
>




------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links






      

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