Theos-Talk Archives (July 2009 Message tt00441)

Dear G. L.

My views are:

You wrote:
"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."

I ask can you provide me with any example so to show the validity of your mudslinging upon H. P. Blavatsky?


M. Sufilight

  ----- 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]