Theos-Talk Archives (July 2009 Message tt00498)

Well...It is your conscience.

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Cass Silva 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 2:51 AM
  Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: Personal God of Christians is true God, Blavatsky was wrong


    Morten,
  I am quite happy to take my karma in the neck for exposing, imo, the fallacious arguments coming from a Judas in our midst.  Lies must not be endured.  

  Cass 

  >
  >From: Morten Nymann Olesen <global-theosophy@stofanet.dk>
  >To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
  >Sent: Monday, 27 July, 2009 7:48:23 PM
  >Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: Personal God of Christians is true God, Blavatsky was wrong
  >
  >  
  >Dear Cass
  >
  >My views are:
  >
  >I am merely seeking to promulgate theosophical teaching.
  >Theosophy is altruism at its core.
  >
  >H. P. Blavatsky told the Jesuits the truth allright. Yet I claim she did it using good examples and proving her case. Even today The Catholic Church (=Jesuitism) knows HPB was right, and officially they do consider the theosophical movement in broad terms the most dangerous to their cause of all the New-Age movements. The Catholic Church is another issue.
  >
  >When we all at Theos-talk communicate with each other, I think it theosophically speaking fair - of me to promote the view - that we at least seek to document our views. And seek to do that - before - we throw a boomerang, which due to the Law of Karma might have a good chance of propelling back into the neck of the thrower, your own self included. What I am saying here is, that I am not hoping to see any of us going through such an unnecessary experience, because we devalue the Law of Karma and ethical behaviour.
  >
  >There is nothing wrong with criticism provided, that we document our views and stop merely quarrelling here at Theos-talk. Quarrelling is not theosophical teaching, it is merely Quarrelling.
  >
  >----- Original Message ----- 
  >From: Cass Silva 
  >To: theos-talk@yahoogro ups.com 
  >Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 3:20 AM
  >Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: Personal God of Christians is true God, Blavatsky was wrong
  >
  >Are you suggesting that we shouldn't have the fortitude to take criticism, especially if it is constructive. And what does politeness have to do with hearing both sides of an issue?
  >HPB spared no politeness on criticising the Roman Church and in particular the Jesuits and made it clear that the Roman Church in its present state offered no path to spiritual freedom.
  >
  >Who can say whether these words are a true and accurate description of what Jesus said?
  >
  >One could argue that doing a good work is to expose the nonsense that religions offer as the path to salvation. And let's not forget we are not 'importing our ideas' to christian groups, they come here, and impose their ideas upon us, and what are we supposed to do when their ideas are in total conflict with our own, kneel to their flaggelation?
  >
  >Cass
  >
  >>
  >>From: Morten Nymann Olesen <global-theosophy@ stofanet. dk>
  >>To: theos-talk@yahoogro ups.com
  >>Sent: Sunday, 26 July, 2009 6:29:40 PM
  >>Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: Personal God of Christians is true God, Blavatsky was wrong
  >>
  >> 
  >>So you are against giving people a fair possibility of expressing their views and perhaps criticise various theosophists if they find it necessary???
  >>
  >>H. P. Blavatsky and I agree upon these words:
  >>"... Alive to the truism that every path may
  >>eventually lead to the highway as every river to the
  >>ocean, we never reject a contribution simply because
  >>we do not believe in the subject it treats upon, or
  >>disagree with its conclusions. Contrast alone can
  >>enable us to appreciate things at their right value;
  >>and unless a judge compares notes and hears both sides
  >>he can hardly come to a correct decision." C.W. III,
  >>p. 224-226.
  >>
  >>Jesus said:
  >>"You have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thy enemy. But I say to you, Love your enemies: do good to them that hate you: and pray for them that persecute and calumniate you"..."For if you love them that love you, what reward shall you have? do not even the publicans this? And if you salute your brethren only, what do you more? do not also the heathens this? Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect." 
  >>(The according to St. Jerome false, but now officially cannonized Gospel of Matthew, http://www.newadven t.org/bible/ mat005.htm)
  >>
  >>And the "Heavenly Father" was not Jesus himself:
  >>He termed himself the son of God, but took care to assert repeatedly that they were all the children of God, who was the Heavenly Father of all. In preaching this, he but repeated a doctrine taught ages earlier by Hermes, Plato, and other philosophers. Strange contradiction! Jesus, whom we are asked to worship as the one living God, is found, immediately after his Resurrection, saying to Mary Magdalene: "I am not yet ascended to my Father; but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God!" (John xx. 17.) 
  >>
  >>"Each human being is an incarnation of his God--in other words, one with his "Father in Heaven," just as Jesus, an Initiate, is made to say." 
  >>(HPB, Esoteric Section, Instruction no. 1, BCW)
  >>
  >>- - -
  >>I remember Jesus is alledged to have said:
  >>"Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but upon a candlestick, that it may shine to all that are in the house. So let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works"...."Be at agreement with thy adversary betimes, whilst thou art in the way with him".
  >>
  >>Now we do of course not as thesophical Seekers aim at lightning a whole sun within our livingroom so to greet our guests, (one reason is of course that your very own portrait might melt on the wall, - smile). And neither do we intend to throw perls (or mud) before swines.
  >>
  >>M. Sufilight
  >>
  >>----- Original Message ----- 
  >>From: Cass Silva 
  >>To: theos-talk@yahoogro ups.com 
  >>Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2009 3:21 AM
  >>Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: Personal God of Christians is true God, Blavatsky was wrong
  >>
  >>Sorry Morten, but when one is faced with unadultered nonsense, truth trumps politeness. Is it the Japanese that bow before they kill you? To me much of politeness is hypocricy - if one can't say what one is thinking because of forced politeness or fear of hurting another's feelings, then the person who threw the first rock should refrain from doing so.
  >>
  >>Cass
  >>
  >>>
  >>>From: Morten Nymann Olesen <global-theosophy@ stofanet. dk>
  >>>To: theos-talk@yahoogro ups.com
  >>>Sent: Friday, 24 July, 2009 9:13:03 PM
  >>>Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: Personal God of Christians is true God, Blavatsky was wrong
  >>>
  >>> 
  >>>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@yahoogro ups.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@yahoogro ups.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@yahoogro ups.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]
  >>>
  >>>
  >>>
  >>
  >>___________ _ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
  >>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]
  >>
  >>[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]
  >
  >[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]



  

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