Are Theosophy & Anthroposophy Religions?

[Bruce Michael]

Dear Companions,
What is in a word?...everything and nothing!

I read once that Dr. Steiner wouldn't have minded if the name of the society change every week or two. The name is not so important- it's the substance behind that name.

Now there has been quite a bit of argument over whether Anthroposophy is a religion, and in modern defintions of the word (legal definitions) it most definitely could be dubbed a religion. In older definitions that wasn't the case.

What did Dr. Steiner mean when he said he that Anthroposophy was not a religion? He was, I think, talking about about dogmatic religion. In anthroposophy and theosophy there are a series of doctrines but no one is forced to believe in them. Anthroposophy also set exercises, meditations prayers etc., but again one can take them or leave them. One could call the latter 'religious observances' and the former 'religious beliefs'.

Rudolf Steiner's cosmogony could be called a "religious world view". There will be the objection "Oh no, that is based on his spiritual investigation and should be reproducible by others." But what does that matter? I'm sure other religions could say the same- Buddhism for instance.

So if one is to say "Anthroposophy/Theosophy is not a religion" one has to go on and define "religion" (and what I'm saying is that that definition will then be out of date.)

He is the Australian definition of religion:
(based on the principles established in the Scientology case) namely:

- belief in a supernatural Being, Thing or Principle; and
- acceptance and observance of canons of conduct in order to give effect to that belief.

The Anthroposophical Society or the Theosophical Society could be registered under that definition.

And what are the benefits of this:
No rates on land taxes on properties.
No General Services tax, or payroll tax.
No fringe benefit tax on employee mortgages or cars.
The AS could run businesses and would not have to show the books or pay tax.

It is assumed that religions channel funds back into charitable causes but they don't have to show proof. In Australia the Seventh Day Adventist Sanatarium Health Food Company is a 300 million dollar a year business. It does not pay tax, it does not show the books. Scientology collects millions and does not have to pay tax.

In the U.S., I have read that Scientologists also get tax deductions on money they spend on courses!



-Br.Bruce

 

[Bruce Michael]

The definitons of words can change over time- sometimes very quickly.

Take "gay" for instance; or today, "wicked" means something desirable.

Secondly, according the legal definition of religion current in Australia, Anthroposophy and Theosophy could be registered as religions.

A religion is a "belief in a supernatural Being, Thing or Principle".

"Anthroposophy is a path of knowledge which would lead the spiritual in man to the spiritual in the Universe."

Believing that there is something spiritual in the universe, is then, a religious belief- you don't even have to call it God.
"Observance of canons of conduct" could be meditation, study groups etc.

There is nothing about forms of ritual and worship in the current definition.

Nevertheless, the important ideal to strive for is a movement which is free from dogmatism, legal definitions aside.


-Br.Bruce

 

[Bruce Michael]

Anthroposophy has no dogma or creed - the Statutes of the Anthroposophical Society specifically forbid dogma. There are definite doctrines though- and there are plenty of very dogmatic anthroposophists.

We may strive to "forbid dogma" but dogma will always be there until everybody has their own direct experiences- and then, don't expect everyone to agree! I think that we should be honest about dogma and not pretend it doesn't exist at all. A healthy attitude to dogma is to view it as a "resting post" along the way.

The attitude that there is only one way, one view, is very dogmatic. The attitude that Rudolf Steiner never made a mistake and is right about everything, is very dogmatic. The forbidding of teachings by other initiates is dogmatic- Tomberg etc.

The Adyar Theosophical Society is much less dogmatic than the AS.

I suppose that if there are going to be some set forms then there are going to be some dogmas. Study groups, meditations and exercises constitute "religious practices".

The Anthroposophical Society prescribes no religious practices, but it still accepts "canons of conduct". There are practices prescribed - such as the Calendar of the Soul - people don't have to take them up but they are definitely accepted.

Anthroposophy is concerned with understanding relationship of the human being to the spiritual world. Is it not a path that leads to "salvation" away from "damnation". It is not just concerned with "an understanding"- anthroposophists must be actively developing one way or another.

Anthroposophy may not be a system of beliefs, but before one knows "all about everything" there will be beliefs.



-Br.Bruce

 

[Snoopy]

the Australian definition of religion:
(based on the principles established in the Scientology case) namely:

- belief in a supernatural Being, Thing or Principle; and
- acceptance and observance of canons of conduct in order to give effect to that belief.

This seems a rather limiting and limited notion of "religion." Professor Ninian Smart is known for his identification of seven aspects of relgious belief; namely:

• Experience - "Religious experience", very non-ordinary
• Social - More than one person claiming Experience
• Narrative - Story of Experience for later participants
• Doctrinal - Beliefs, must be rational and logical within entire system
• Ethical - Behaviours that correspond to beliefs
• Ritual - Repeated access to Experience
• Material - Material manifestation for participants

- Ninian Smart - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

s.

​

 

[Bruce Michael]

This seems a rather limiting and limited notion of "religion." Professor Ninian Smart is known for his identification of seven aspects of relgious belief; namely:

• Experience - "Religious experience", very non-ordinary
• Social - More than one person claiming Experience
• Narrative - Story of Experience for later participants
• Doctrinal - Beliefs, must be rational and logical within entire system
• Ethical - Behaviours that correspond to beliefs
• Ritual - Repeated access to Experience
• Material - Material manifestation for participants

- Ninian Smart - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

s.

​

Dear Snoopy,
I would have thought the definition I posted was a very wide one- wide enough for all, even the most vaguely "spiritual".

As I intimated, the Scientology case altered the definition. The Scientologists were keen to to registered, for obvious reasons.

Kind Regards,
Br.Bruce

 

[Bruce Michael]

Yes, Anthroposophy is not a dogmatic religion. These days any old thing can be registered as a religion. It doesn't even have to do with any God or gods. It may be the work of a Black Magician.

Rudolf Steiner said once that if he returned and found that the Anthroposophical Society had become a dogmatic religion he would be its "bitterest enemy". I think the word "dogmatic" is the properly pejorative one, not religion.

So if others characterize anthroposophy as a religion it can hardly be argued against, because these days anything even vaguely spiritual (or not) can be registered as such. But it should never become a dogmatic religion. There must always be a freedom of thought- this is what can be emphasized to any critics. There is no "official line" from the Anthroposophical Society which speaks for all members or non-members. There is no thought police and thought control.

Of course, our brothers and sisters will hold to their various dogmas; and this is not much of a problem as long as we uphold a spirit of brotherhood and tolerance- that and the knowledge that our individual dogmas are only "place holders" on our journey towards ever more clarity.


-Br.Bruce

 

[Neemai]

Hi there Bruce,

I was reading a few Theosophy related articles from around the web recently and when coming across this I thought no it's not a religion, it more a universal organisation:

This organization's objectives are

1. To form a nucleus of the Universal Brotherhood of Humanity, without distinction of race, creed, sex, caste or color.
2. To encourage the study of Comparative Religion, Philosophy and Science.
3. To investigate unexplained laws of Nature and the powers latent in man.

but then when I read the following about Theosophical beliefs it changed my mind somewhat:

- There exists a Consciousness (Logos), Universal and Individual
- Immortality of Man
- Belief in Reincarnation
- Belief in theory of Karma
- Universal Brotherhood
- Evolution is God's plan and every individual ascends to Divinity

although I personally agree with the majority of these general beliefs, wouldn't the very fact that a certain set of beliefs are being promoted mean that Theosophy has to be viewed as a religion? Or are these conclusions not set in stone and instead seen as the current "best guesses" from all available research? In which case it would be more of an organisational conclusion, and thus less of a religious one? Or maybe it would fit somewhere in-between the two. The ol' English language isn't always perfect in defining reality, so maybe Theosophy just doesn't fit under either definition?

Best wishes,


... Neemai

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Neemai,

Although Theosophy officially says it is not a religion, it can be argued that Theosophy both is, and is not, a religion. It all depends on your definition.

What is your definition of "religion"?

 

[Neemai]

What is your definition of "religion"?

Hi Nick, I think that in the dictionary it is described as a form of faith, or set of philosophical beliefs, which is good as a universal meaning that we can all use, but personally I believe that to know God, and to love God - that is religion.

I wouldn't expect this to be a widely accepted definition in todays culture as some religions don't believe in a God. But personally it's one I'd follow.

Is there a popular definition of religion within Theosophy?


... Neemai

 

[Thomas]

Hi Neemai —

I was thinking about this myself. I see a contradiction in a principle which states:
To form a nucleus of the Universal Brotherhood of Humanity, without distinction of race, creed, sex, caste or color

and then goes on to specify a creed which is, presumably, binding on the Universal brotherhood of which it speaks, and which serves as a means of distinction right from the word go:

[1]- There exists a Consciousness (Logos), Universal and Individual
[2]- Immortality of Man
[3]- Belief in Reincarnation
[4]- Belief in theory of Karma
[5]- Universal Brotherhood
[6]- Evolution is God's plan and every individual ascends to Divinity

If one's own religious confession does not accord with the above under every condition (and patently Catholicism and Buddhism do not, to name but two), then surely one is required to abandon one's own creed and adopt the Theosophist creed in its place?

With regard to Universal brotherhood, does no Baha'i make precisely the same claim — in which case we have another significant contradiction?

Can we posit, for sake of argument, that a definition of religion is an adherence to a given creed ... if we take creed in its etymological Latin context of 'I believe... "?

Thomas

 

[Nick the Pilot]

-----====ooo000ooo====-----

Neemai,

I find it fascinating that many of us consider "religion" to be the most important thing in our lives, but some of us have never actually sat down and hashed out a workable definition. As you can see, it is not easy. It is something we all need to think about deeply.

Certainly the idea of "God as religion" does not work, IF you think of millions of Buddhists as belonging to a religion. (Do you?)

I have never actually come across a definition of religion in Theosophy, which, again, is amazing, since it is such an important word. If you use the "God as religion" definition, then Theosophy is definitely not a religion.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

-----====(^_^)====-----

Thomas,

Theosophy welcomes all people of all creeds. It also has a specific set of doctrines. The purpose of Theosophy is to show a commonality, and shared origin of all the creeds of the world.


You said,

"...and then goes on to specify a creed which is, presumably, binding on the Universal brotherhood of which it speaks...."​

--> The key word here is binding. Theosophy does not bind anyone to believing in any specific doctrine. No one Theosophist has the right to tell another what to believe. For example, reincarnation is a key theosophical concept, but someone who does not believe in reincarnation is free to join Theosophical discussions without believing in reincarnation, and no one has the right to them they are "wrong".

Let me give you a stronger example that came up at a Theosophical class I attended recently. Theosophy does not teach that Jesus was the Son of God. Yet there were several Christian Theosophists who attended this very class. Clearly, there is a "rub" between Christian Theosophists and Buddhist Theosophists on this point.

But this is the beauty of inter-religious studies, of which Theosophy is very much a part. All of us are learning to get along, and be part of a community — the very purpose of Theosophy.

You may ask yourself, if Christians believe in Jesus, yet Theosophy does not teach of his divinity, why do Christians even come to a Theosophical class? Because Theosophy explains Cosmogenesis and Anthropogenesis in a way that no other philosophy does. They get answers on specifc topics that they can get nowhere else. (What I am hinting at here is, the topic of Jesus pretty much gets ignored, and we just talk about something else in class. What happens in private discussions is a different matter. Christian Theosophists are always trying to sneak the Christian concept into private discussions — at least this is my biased opinion on the subject. Anyway, we Buddhist-minded Theosophists just look the other way whenever the subject comes up.) This is the very nature of religious pluralism, and Theosophy continues to pioneer in the area of such religious pluralism.

Theosophy does not shun any topic. And Theosophy does not prohibit any topic, such as the divinity/non-divinity of Jesus. This is the true nature of "official uncreedness" which is at the core of Theosophy.


On a similar topic, I see the Bailey and Steiner Schools as forms of Theosophy that have fully adopted the Christian concept. (Perhaps both Christianity and Theosophy fufill basic human needs?)

"If one's own religious confession does not accord with the above under every condition (and patently Catholicism and Buddhism do not, to name but two), then surely one is required to abandon one's own creed and adopt the Theosophist creed in its place?"​

--> This is exactly what Theosophy does not do.

"With regard to Universal brotherhood, does no Baha'i make precisely the same claim — in which case we have another significant contradiction?"​

--> I see no contradiction.

"Can we posit, for sake of argument, that a definition of religion is an adherence to a given creed ... if we take creed in its etymological Latin context of 'I believe... "?"​

--> This is similar to a definition I used for years. It is based on the idea a person can have a religion all by themselves. No connection with other similar-believing people is required. (I have come to disagree with such a one-person definition.)

 

[Thomas]

Re: -----====(^_^)====-----

Theosophy welcomes all people of all creeds. It also has a specific set of doctrines. The purpose of Theosophy is to show a commonality, and shared origin of all the creeds of the world.

That's my point. Christian doctrine does not correspond with your doctrines. This 'shared commonality' is your doctrine, no-one else's, so you seek to impose it upon us.

Thomas

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Thomas,


Nirvana (and instructions on how to enter Nirvana) are not imposed on anyone. In fact, people are actually discouraged from applying for entry into Nirvana until they are ready. When a person applies for admission into Nirvana, and they fail the test, it is an ugly sight indeed. (Unfortunately, such cases exist. Fortunately, Theosophy is here to share these stories.)

"Christian doctrine does not correspond with your doctrines."​

--> (1) Theosophy takes your statement as a compliment. Thanks!

(2) I think it would be good to compare Christianity with Theosophy regarding what is required to "get into Heaven". Christianity says a person who rejects Jesus will never get into Heaven. Period. No if's, and's, or but's. Theosophy, on the other hand, take the opposite view. No rejection of any Theosopical ideas earns a person more or less time in Heaven or Hell. According to Theosophy, entry into Heaven and Nirvana is more about building a good track-record than voicing any particular doctrine. (Rejecting Theosophical concepts can slow down a person's progress towards Nirvana, but that is an entirely different subject.)

One more thing: You are saying Christianity rejects the commonality of all religions, while Theosophy teaches such an idea. I completely agree with you!

 

[Thomas]

Hi Nick —

Nirvana (and instructions on how to enter Nirvana) are not imposed on anyone.

I'd rather not confues the issue by mixing paradigms. Nirvana has no transferable meaning in a Christian context — the one is a-theist, the other theist, the one holds the person as ephemeral, the other it is fundamental, and so forth...

I think it would be good to compare Christianity with Theosophy regarding what is required to "get into Heaven".

So do I. My first question would be, if there is no doctrine of Theosophy, what is required to get to heaven?

Christianity says a person who rejects Jesus will never get into Heaven. Period. No if's, and's, or but's.

But that depends upon how you read Jesus ... if I said Jesus is Truth, Reality, Good personified, the Logos ... then rejection of Him involves the rejection of what is real, what is true, what is good, etc... your view just exemplifies just how little Theosophy understands of that which it assumes to bring under its banner.

According to Theosophy, entry into Heaven and Nirvana is more about building a good track-record than voicing any particular doctrine. (Rejecting Theosophical concepts can slow down a person's progress towards Nirvana, but that is an entirely different subject.)

Track record of what?

One more thing: You are saying Christianity rejects the commonality of all religions, while Theosophy teaches such an idea. I completely agree with you!

I know you do ... but for completely the wrong reasons!

Thomas

 

[Neemai]

Hi Neemai —

I was thinking about this myself. I see a contradiction in a principle which states:
To form a nucleus of the Universal Brotherhood of Humanity, without distinction of race, creed, sex, caste or color

and then goes on to specify a creed which is, presumably, binding on the Universal brotherhood of which it speaks, and which serves as a means of distinction right from the word go: ....

These were also my thoughts when I read the article. Universal religious acceptance (or similar) becomes a meaningless statement once you start having solid beliefs of your own and accepting them as ultimate truths. I don't neccessarily see this as a bad thing, but it is a mixed-message nonetheless. Maybe the article I quoted from wasn't all that well written also and is trying to promote something incorrectly? I respect the outlook, but in a number of Universally aimed religions this crops up as an issue...


... Neemai

 

[Neemai]

Re: -----====ooo000ooo====-----

Neemai,

I find it fascinating that many of us consider "religion" to be the most important thing in our lives, but some of us have never actually sat down and hashed out a workable definition. As you can see, it is not easy. It is something we all need to think about deeply.

Lol. Nick do you know how condescending that sounds?
(Please note that I am saying this in good humour)

Certainly the idea of "God as religion" does not work, IF you think of millions of Buddhists as belonging to a religion. (Do you?)

What I said was: to know God, and to Love God - that is religion (from my personal context). This works perfectly well within the Gaudiya-Vaishnava perspective and world understanding/philosphy which I follow (based on Bhagavad-Gita, the Puranas and Vedas) but obviously wouldn't work as a generic terms across all cultures (thus the dictionary defintion). I dare say it would also apply in the case of Christianity, Islam, and other devotional traditions.

Within the Vaishnava context Buddhism is also a religion because Buddha is viewed as an avatar of Vishnu, and anyone who follows His teachings is thus going to obtain eternal benefit (even if externally Buddha's philosophy directly contradicts the idea of God).

If you use the "God as religion" definition, then Theosophy is definitely not a religion.

Does Theosophy not involve any worship of God? or do you mean that it's just the definition that doesn't fit? I thought some concept of a Supreme being was included?

Best wishes,


... Neemai

 

[Nick the Pilot]

-----====@_@====-----

Thomas, you said,

"Nirvana has no transferable meaning in a Christian context..."​

--> Therefore, it is fortunate to have this Forum to spread the idea of Nirvana, that Nirvana is completely different than Heaven, and that there is no conflict between the two concepts.

"...the one is a-theist, the other theist...."​

--> It is fascinating to consider Nirvana an inherently atheistic idea. I see no need to believe such an idea. (Theosophists are not atheists.)

"...if there is no doctrine of Theosophy, what is required to get to heaven?"​

(1) I never said there are no doctrines. There are no dogmas. And, although doctrines abound in Theosophy, no one is required to believe any of them. You have the power to excommunicate me for just disagreeing with you. On the other hand, I have no such power (and I would not have it any other way.)

(2) Anyone who spends time thinking pure, pious, devotional, etc., thoughts will spend time in Heaven. It is that simple. Theosophists also see such thoughts as accumulative: The more we think such thoughts, the more time we will spend in a temporary Heaven. (Theosophy sees Heaven as temporary, not eternal.) Also, whether these thoughts are also connected to simutaneous recitation of dogma makes no difference.


There is one caveat — it is possible for people to do things so horrible they forfit a trip to Heaven after this lifetime. (Heaven can still await them after a subsequent lifetime, which is a very fair arrangement.)

"But that depends upon how you read Jesus ... if I said Jesus is Truth, Reality, Good personified, the Logos ... then rejection of Him involves the rejection of what is real, what is true, what is good, etc..."​

--> Fortunately, not everyone shares your definition of Jesus. For those of us who do not see Jesus as such a personification, we can still pursue truth while believing Jesus was only human.

"Track record of what?"​

--> Service! Nirvana will be (almost) nothing but going around and doing nice things for people non-stop for millions of years. A person has to prove they are willing to agree to such an arrangement. As I said in a previous post, we are not even asked if we believe in Jesus when we apply for entry into Nirvana. We are asked for proof that we want to do nothing but give service for millions of years.

To Theosophists, it is about as easy to get into Heaven as it is difficult to get into Nirvana.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

-----====(@_@)====-----

Neemai, you asked,

"Within the Vaishnava context Buddhism is also a religion because Buddha is viewed as an avatar of Vishnu..."​

--> I disagree, because Buddhism is what it is today. Millions of Buddhists do not believe in God, and the Buddhism they belong to does not teach of a God. Any theistic leanings Buddha himself may have brought (as an avatar) have long since been eliminated from the modern version of Buddhism. Just because an organization was theistic before, is no proof it is still theistic today.

"...and anyone who follows His teachings is thus going to obtain eternal benefit (even if externally Buddha's philosophy directly contradicts the idea of God)."​

--> As a matter of fact, I agree with you. I would say the oppositie is also true — anyone who follow "God's teachings" is moving closer to Nirvana, even though belief in God is not necessary to make progress towards Nirvana.

"Does Theosophy not involve any worship of God?"​

--> It does not. Theosophy strives for the understanding of divinity (as shown by the name "Theosophy") not the worshipping of it. I do not mean to be rude, but, quite frankly, I do not see how a Universal Principle is affected by worship. (You do?) Therefore, the need to worship the Absolute strikes me as unnecessary. (Does God "need" worship?)

"I thought some concept of a Supreme being was included?"​

--> Theosophy teaches of something called the Absolute, but it is quite different than that which is taught by theistic religions. Theosphy also teaches of a God that is different than the Absolute, and teaches against the idea of an Almighty God. (Sounds confusing, huh?)

"Universal religious acceptance (or similar) becomes a meaningless statement once you start having solid beliefs of your own and accepting them as ultimate truths."​

--> I am not sure what you mean by "universal religious acceptance." I do not think Theosophy teaches such a thing. Theosophy walks a fine line, by respecting and encouraging religious differences, yet stressing the idea that all religions came from one single source.

 

[taijasi]

Fancy the idea of a Wisdom-Religion, wherein the Wisdom of God - nothing more, nothing less, constitutes our very Philosophy of Life ... including an Ethics, a Metaphysics, and the greatest raison d'etre that any human being could possibly ask for! PURPOSE

It becomes clear, to some, why any system which insists upon exclusivity and narrowness of interpretation, while yet condemning or brow-beating those who dare to question ... will never - or no longer - suffice.

Bitterness and pride can so easily blind us to Revelation which might be immediately helpful to us, and keep us from realizing that although the original inspiration still exists in every major religion, it is much diluted, diminished and fast-disappearing - especially where rigidity and authoritarianism are enforced, and where the Spirit of Free Inquiry is essentially unwelcome.

You see, it is a New Era, and this is true for all of Humanity, and for the followers of every Religion - and of none. With the Scientific Revolution came the initial wave of a great, Liberating Energy ... and this is one which is opening the very Gates of Heaven Itself, for a free interchange of ideas, Inspiration, and of the Divine Life both Great and small - flowing to and within us all.

Some will continue to oppose the overall progress, which cannot be prevented - but can, sadly, be delayed. Doing so in the name of `my religion,' becomes a crappy copout and a thin excuse when the very Founder of one's religion taught us to Love our Neighbors as ourselves, and when the Spirit of Ecumenism is so readily available for those who are of the Heart to Invoke It.

The future World Religion, in which an overall Unification of Rites and Rituals will exist, as well as the establishment of commonly accepted Principles and Values, even some degree of integration & synthesis of today's noblest Prayers, Mantrams and Invocations ... this World Religion may be centuries in the making.

Just as today's world religions have taken even dozens upon dozens of centuries, we must be patient, and not look for the emergence of Perfect Religious Unity overnight. It just won't happen. And the disciples and aspirants of the world all recognize this quite well, whatever exoteric religion (or none) might be their choosing. Yet those who have glimpsed something of the future, and who know the need of the times (as well as the Spirit which underlies all outer events), do work, even now, for that distant day.

Theosophy, in the truest sense - Theos Sophia, the Wisdom of God - is not a religion. It is religion - the very Heart and Soul of this binding [effort] between God and Man. Theosophy is the root of the tree of Spirituality, even as it is the TRUNK of commonality (amongst religions), without which individual religionsupon the planet could never exist.

Yes, it is that SIMPLE. Theosophy is the WISDOM in the Mind of God. It is Love-Wisdom, and it is also Creative Understanding, as well as Divine Vision. If we are aware of the fact that all three of these only begin to convey what is meant by the word `Theosophy,' THEN we have started to see just how wonderful, and how grand, Theosophy actually is. To deny it, is to DENY that God is Wise, to DENY that God Loves and Understands us, and to DENY that Humanity is even remotely capable of coming into Harmony with Divine Purpose. For this is the FOUNDATION of the Theosophical Society, as ONE among many, many, many modern expressions of Theos-Sophia, the WISDOM RELIGION.

The man who can see only syncretism, is wrongly imagining that Theosophy's aim is to gather the Tree's many branches, twigs and leaves, and forceably bind them into a broken, smashed up mass. That is an uninformed vision, a poor understanding, and a sad sight indeed! Theosophy, in terms of its philosophy, has always sought to reveal what is already here, as well as to indicate the Road of Progress toward the future.

A future in which the many warring members of One Body have ceased to wound and compete with each other, and where the Spirit of Cooperation, and Harmony is starting to prevail, having emerged out of conflict ... THIS is the Vision, in general outline, toward which the aspirants and disicples of our world are working.

Christ was crucified because He dared to bring the TRUTH to a world that was unwelcoming of it, and which was too invested in preserving the status quo ... in upholding the OLD ORDER. It is almost ironic that instead of Rome, it was the failings of those closest to Christ, and the SANHEDRIN - the elitists among the PRIESTHOOD of His own people - which cut short Christ's Teaching.

History repeats itself. And thus, those in fear of losing what little they have, lash out at those who ever, continuously SEEK - knowing that even what little they have learned, is as nothing, next to the Wisdom of the Lord.

We will be accused of cobbliing together our Truths by stealing them from those who - got them WHERE?

We will be accused of inventing history, because we dare to tell it without bias, without browbeating the listener into an acceptance of our CREEDS and DOGMAS ... and threatening him with HELL if he dares to question the Gospel teachings which we have fed him.

We are loathed, because we say, QUESTION what you have been taught, look for connections with your own observations in life, and try to see where the Divine Order is working Itself out into the outer world.

We are persecuted, because we declare the INTELLECT, even our tiny, human minds, to be the CREATION, and the INSTRUMENT, for the working of the Divine Consciousness, every bit as much as emotion, as passion, as feelings. We encourage the WISE, REASONED EXERCISE of the Intellectual faculty, and we say - try to imagine things from all possible angles.

In this way, our limitations are gradually overcome, and the Light of the Higher Reason can make its way into our understanding ... revealing a WHOLE that is already existent - GREATER than the sum of its individual, human parts. This Soul Principle, the Christ of Ephesians 4:13, cannot be understood by one who is unwilling to relinquish, in order to gain.

And therefore, the WISDOM OF GOD is no religion in such a person's eyes. It is anathema, for it is the very antidote to the ills of enslavement to a dead-letter ritualism, a blind allegiance to and unquestioning obedience of dogma, and a lockstep following of the embodied spirit of authoritarianism itself. These, in his zeal (less reasoned than he dares to imagine), he cannot recognize for what they are.

The Saul of Tarsus, until he meets his conversion, will continue to persecute us, and he will do everything in his power to affix the Kick Me sign securely to our posterior, and to rally all the unquestioning sheep who can only hear familiar, rabble-rousing rattlings ...

... while to his confessor, the only shortcoming, is the inability to sway those few, brave souls who dared to question - and who saw through our dear Saul's persecutions.

Will it ever occur, to confess his greatest sins of all?

Or will the Spirit of Unification, forever be confused in his mind and heart, with that of conformity, and will his greatest GIFT of all - only remain a DEVIL.

He can either LIFT the Light, that others may Know the Way, sharing and shining this Light from on high, or he can curse it, tell them it is evil, spit on them for daring to shine it bright ... ever forgetting that without that Light, he would not THINK at all.

Let us DO get on with the GROWING UP ...

... some of us are getting sick of watching Saul spit on the Torch-Bearers.