bob x
Well-Known Member
But why should we believe that, when the positions taken by the Catholic church in the past have been so very wrong?
The Infallibility of Doctrine
- Thread starter Thomas
- Start date
taijasi
Gnōthi seauton
I truly believe that 9/10ths of Christians, Catholic or otherwise, wouldn't know Jesus if he walked into their church, sat down, and sang the hymns along with them.
POSSIBLY, and I mean just possibly, after he had left, there might a handful of folks who would ask each other, Who was that interesting visitor?
And friends ... that's exactly what he would be.
POSSIBLY, and I mean just possibly, after he had left, there might a handful of folks who would ask each other, Who was that interesting visitor?
And friends ... that's exactly what he would be.
Well, to me the difference is as plain as day. The Medieval and Renaissance artist drew from the cultural paradigm for their imagery ...
You mean we're still into slavery, concubinage, etc? Else, what's your point? Then you shouldn't be a Christian at all — Jesus never condemned slavery, concubinage ... and I can interpret His texts to promote an extreme racism if I wanted ... I have moved beyond finding ancilliary reasons to condemn anyone ... I look to the heart of their beliefs ...
Nor is that what I'm saying.
Is the opposite any better? That we dump everything we've ever learned at the turn of every generation?
OK. Just wanted to clarify.
But movements don't spring up out of nowhere ... they all have sources and causes, and that's what needs to be examined.
Thomas
taijasi
Gnōthi seauton
Isn't it refreshing that you are looking beyond superficialities before you condemn us, Thomas?Thomas said:
Your words.
It depends entirely on what remains, if anything, of value. You have your standards for judging what is of value, and I have mine. Each person should be free to make this decision on his or her own.Thomas said:
My argument shall ever remain that the assumption that we need an external authority to DETERMINE for us what our standards should be, even our standards for interpreting religious texts and meanings ... is a fallacious one. People are not mere sheep, however herdlike we may typically act, in the majority.
Were it not for individual, inventive, creative and constructive thought ... (read imagination) ... the world as we know it would not exist. Once a man has equated the imagination with a sphere of purely hypothetical, and never-real existence ... he has immediately HALTED the natural order of the precipitation, or manifestation of the Divine into (and through) the earthly.
Only once we are restored to a position of confidence and empowerment, recognizing our Divine potential and accepting our Responsibility as stewards of this, God's own Handiwork surrounding us on every side (interior, as well as exterior), may we begin to cooperate with the Divine Order and fulfil our Purpose (Destiny, Dharma) here.
I did not need the writings of the learned doctor Thomas Aquinas to bring me to any of the above realizations. I may yet be able to learn something from such a study, even apply various principles to my life and behavior in order to better myself (ideally to thereby assist others). But curiously, there are other authors of advice and theological hypothesis ... and entering by another gate, a man still comes to the same, outwardly concealed Divine Presence.
If the Great Ones can bi-locate, and even appear twice at once while IN THE FLESH upon our planet, just imagine what They can do -- in Spirit.
Amazing, how if God gave us all the same potential powers of observation, we do not all report precisely the same experiences ... even two people standing side by side and gazing at the clouds in the sky. Take these same two individuals to the closest art gallery, and the reports of their perceptions and impressions continue to diverge ... despite the closer proximity of the objects of their investigation.Thomas said:
Now ask both of these same persons to explain to you the life of an ant. Without a leading word or additional parameters, even a speck no larger than a pinhead becomes two utterly different realities ... manifest, somewhere, through the descriptions of each of our immediately present, equally OBJECTIVE observers.
At which point, were we to substitute for the ant the presence of a man, telling a tale to a huddled group of college students, will we recognize the Saviour ... and understand that Christ, too, walks and talks among us?
When shall the recognition of the Teacher ... finally reach us, even in this dark corner?
Or would we prefer to ask, when shall recognition from the Teacher ... ever, finally arrive?
Hi Andrew —
May I remind you all I asked here was ... do other traditions have the concept of infallibility of doctrine?
Most answers have been short and succinct ... yes ... or no.
No-one from another tradition feels it necessary to then step up and start criticising Christianity.
TS likewise says no ... but why cannot you just leave it at that? Why the constant and tiresome ad hominem attacks? Why the constant strawman arguments?
Your own words mock your doctrine of brotherhood.
Indeed, as Christians thinkers occupy some of the foremost seats in the circles of academia, this renders your whole argument a nonsense. Furthermore, I might ask where your TS representatives are? or is this just 'sour grapes'?
Thomas
Not really, I always do ... I just wish it was mutual ... in fact I wish I got just an answer to my question, half the time.
May I remind you all I asked here was ... do other traditions have the concept of infallibility of doctrine?
Most answers have been short and succinct ... yes ... or no.
No-one from another tradition feels it necessary to then step up and start criticising Christianity.
TS likewise says no ... but why cannot you just leave it at that? Why the constant and tiresome ad hominem attacks? Why the constant strawman arguments?
Thanks you once again for affirming that simple fact, which has ever been the case of dispute between us ... then it begs the questions I have asked above ... why can you not respect my beliefs?
Your own words mock your doctrine of brotherhood.
Criticial thinking time - it's a straw-man argument.
Indeed, as Christians thinkers occupy some of the foremost seats in the circles of academia, this renders your whole argument a nonsense. Furthermore, I might ask where your TS representatives are? or is this just 'sour grapes'?
I know, isn't it fantastic? The contribution that Christianity has made to European culture is inestimable. When, if ever, TS achieves likewise, it might be in a position to criticise.
Thomas
Francis king
Well-Known Member
lol... "HPB didnt want to tell ppl about the masters"... so why are they mentioned so often? to give her thoughts some kind of credibility? ah ha!
taijasi
Gnōthi seauton
Thomas,Thomas said:
I stated that I don't think 90% of people would know Jesus if he walked into their church and sat down beside them to sing and pray. From this, you dare to talk about me "criticising Christianity?" The AUDACITY!
This, coming from someone who had made it his personal mission in life to SHOOT DOWN every voicing of the Theosophical philosophy and science wherever it occurs, whenever it occurs. HYPOCRITE!!!
Then, you accuse ME of `ad hominem' attacks, and the MASTER of the straw man ploy dares to invoke such a weak accusation, where THERE HASN'T EVEN BEEN an argument made, much less a straw man argument!
Thomas, crack kills.
But remember, it is you yourself that said, plain and simple, that "YOU ARE HERE TO CONDEMN US." Frankly, I don't GIVE A DAMN whether you are bothering to look beyond superficialities or not. Your purpose here, as voiced against Theosophists, at least - and anyone ELSE who doesn't SUIT YOU, I suppose - is OFFENSIVE ENOUGH.
Why do I despise your very presence? The reasons should now be clear enough. You are a man of judgment and hate ... and I wonder, WHAT have you to offer, supposedly pertaining to the Teachings of the Saviour of Angels and of men, which will not reflect this curious spirit in which you approach those who do not meet with your standards?
For a man who "is here to CONDEMN US," I think you have enough cleaning of your OWN house to do, and some time to spend in the proverbial, introspective mirror of your OWN psyche, before you go digging around and mucking around in OTHER people's ... looking to make improvements.Thomas said:
I refuse to respect ANY philosophy which tries to tell ME how to think, much less precisely WHAT to think.
ON THIS THREAD, you yourself have declared the INFALLIBILITY of your doctrine. At least I have the balls enough to ADMIT ... that like everyone else, I am a seeker, and that I do NOT have the authority - the ultimate authority - to decide whose doctrines, and which doctrines, ARE and ARE NOT legitimate, accurate, valid and worthy.
YOU, on the other hand Thomas, by your OWN STATEMENT AND ADMISSION, are "HERE TO CONDEMN," believing vainly, as you do, that YOUR DOCTRINES ARE INFALLIBLE.
There is no room in a Brotherhood of Man, for this kind of obstinate, childish insistence. You must either GROW UP, which I'm afraid you have forgotten how to do ...
... or the basis, and the true nature of the Brotherhood, will ever elude you.
There are those who band together in the opposition of the Spirit of Chirst, however - and they will ever stand for (and with those who insist upon) rigidity of intepretation and for (those who likewise prefer) divisiveness ... and, like yourself, they love to attack the Brotherhood of Love and Light. Keep knocking. Ever do they answer, and each knock takes you one door deeper ...
You, of all people, would be the expert when it comes to sour grapes. I refer, in speaking of external authority, to your own affirmation that your doctrines and papal pronouncements are INFALLIBLE. Ever, so long as the ability to recognize truth is ascribed to another, and REPUDIATED as existing within the heart and mind of every single one of us ... it is YOUR stance which is the `house of cards,' itself erected on a foundation of sand.Thomas said:
Petrine legacy indeed. What you don't know won't hurt you ... much.
Your Master, at the moment, tests me by pushing me to the very limit, yet he also knows where my allegiances lie ... and he knows well enough that my indignation is justified.Thomas said:
Thomas, you have allied yourself with evil itself. Woe to you; your karma, as that of every single individual (and GROUP), must eventually ... be balanced. Godspeed you on your recognition of this fact, and on the righting of your wrongs.
I will not add to the burden, but I will also leave it to you, to carry this load.
Namaskar,
~andrew
taijasi
Gnōthi seauton
LOL, credibility? Just exactly who, besides one TS member, one AS member, and one former TS member believes her CREDIBLE around here?
THINK before you speak, Francis.
HPB sought to popularize the existence of the Hierarchy, and she did this, in part, by speaking about various individual members of that Brotherhood. She was taken to task during her own lifetime, by people exactly like yourself, bananabrain and Thomas ... and what she regretted is the revelation to the mundane of such individual identities as her own Master, the Master KH, the Master R, et al.
She did not resent making it known that such Teachers exist. It was the specifics, the providing of the ignorant, the self-righteous and even the pernicious or jealous would-be students ... with more than a paper target, with something to fix their attacks upon, which she regretted.
I, for one, understand where she's coming from. It led to nothing but hell for her ... and 130 years later, we STILL see - and feel - the hate, pouring in. Hatred, envy, fear, ridicule, scorn ... the list goes on.
Thanks ...
Andrew - as we seem to be at loggerheads over who's attacking who, and on what grounds, let me distil the essentials from your post.
ad hominem
strawman
By the way, there is an esoteric teaching in Christianity you might be unaware of, that signifies that no-one will know Jesus, unless Jesus Himself chooses to be known, and if that is the case, then that knowing will be undeniable.
False logic
ad hominem
False logic
ad hominem
False logic
ad hominem
I'm not a crack dealer.
Show me where.
ad hominem
And simply an offensive remark ...
And simply an offensive remark ...
ad hominem
And simply an offensive remark ...
ad hominem
And simply an offensive remark ...
False logic
ad hominem
strawman
Are Christians not seekers?
False logic
ad hominem
strawman argument.
Might I remind you that throughtout this, it is you who is telling me how to interpret my Scriptures and my doctrines?
ad hominem
Well, unless you have the authority to speak for 90% of of people, this comprises an:
ad hominem
strawman
By the way, there is an esoteric teaching in Christianity you might be unaware of, that signifies that no-one will know Jesus, unless Jesus Himself chooses to be known, and if that is the case, then that knowing will be undeniable.
You have conflated my post to support your criticism, so this is:
False logic
ad hominem
As I do not post on topics from Theosophy, but only when my tradition is misrepresented:
False logic
ad hominem
As I invariably supply the reason and logic for my answers, and as my requests for a debate on such grounds are consistently ignored or denied:
False logic
ad hominem
ad hominem
I'm not a crack dealer.
ad hominem
Show me where.
False logic
ad hominem
And simply an offensive remark ...
Thank you for admitting as much. Your reasoning, by the way, are your own.
And simply an offensive remark ...
False logic
ad hominem
And simply an offensive remark ...
False logic
ad hominem
And simply an offensive remark ...
Would you ignore advice from a doctor? A scientist? A fireman?
False logic
This is true ... we are allowed, according to your principles, the freedom of religious expression to make such statements.
False logic
ad hominem
strawman
Are Christians not seekers?
Nor do we ... we just speak for our own.
False logic
ad hominem
strawman argument.
Might I remind you that throughtout this, it is you who is telling me how to interpret my Scriptures and my doctrines?
False logic
ad hominem
ad hominem
ad hominem
So that Andrew and any others interested might better understand, I shall offer some of the reasoning behind the notion of the infallibility of Doctrine.
The whole rests, of course, on the idea of a Personal God.
From then, there are two simple steps:
1 It is God's will that He be known;
2 God's will being such, it is a given that such a God is capable of ensuring that what He wishes to be known can be known 'infallibly', that is without the admixture of error.
3 Whether man chooses to accept what is made known is, of course, another matter.
Judaism and Islam, with regard to Christianity, reject not so much the infallibility of the Divine Word, but the infallibility of its messener, in this instance, Jesus.
The distinction between Scripture and Doctrine is that the latter flows from the former. In fact there were discussions in the 4th century as to whether a doctrine could be defined if there was no precise referrant in Scripture (such as in the case of The Trinity), or where a referrant did occur, should it be taken absolutely at face value.
One of my favourite speculations on the latter case is the term 'apokatastasis' — the final reconciliation of good and evil, based on 1 Corinthians 15:28 — "When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all".
The Pauline text seems to contradict the words of Jesus in the Gospel — who speaks of a final conflagration and the extinction of those who remain perpeutally turned away from God. On this occasion, Paul is the more charitable and forgiving — Jesus is definitely the hard-liner! Thus the necessity for theology.
I do think that if the notion of a Personal God is accepted, then the idea of infallibility is not far away — otherwise we must assume that God's own word is itself suspect.
There is an argument that the Absolute nature of God does not a priori render Scripture itself infallible. The Church is well aware of this from the post-Englightenment disputes, as discussed above. I think the position is nuanced, but not beyond reason and logic.
The one traditional notion under constant review is that God alone is the direct author of Scripture. We no longer press this issue, although we do insist that its inspiration is Divine.
To me this is the most exciting arena of doctrinal investigation, and brings up a host of questions, such as:
What is the difference between inspiration and intuition, reason and revelation? and, Did the scribe know he was writing a text that would become Canonical and thus Infallible?
However, what I would like to ask is:
Do other religious traditions draw a distinction between 'infallible' and 'reliable' with regard to their sacra doctrina?
or put another way, how 'dependable' is a text, and what certitude can an adherent draw from it?
What effect has this on a text's exegesis?
Thomas
The whole rests, of course, on the idea of a Personal God.
From then, there are two simple steps:
1 It is God's will that He be known;
2 God's will being such, it is a given that such a God is capable of ensuring that what He wishes to be known can be known 'infallibly', that is without the admixture of error.
3 Whether man chooses to accept what is made known is, of course, another matter.
Judaism and Islam, with regard to Christianity, reject not so much the infallibility of the Divine Word, but the infallibility of its messener, in this instance, Jesus.
The distinction between Scripture and Doctrine is that the latter flows from the former. In fact there were discussions in the 4th century as to whether a doctrine could be defined if there was no precise referrant in Scripture (such as in the case of The Trinity), or where a referrant did occur, should it be taken absolutely at face value.
One of my favourite speculations on the latter case is the term 'apokatastasis' — the final reconciliation of good and evil, based on 1 Corinthians 15:28 — "When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all".
The Pauline text seems to contradict the words of Jesus in the Gospel — who speaks of a final conflagration and the extinction of those who remain perpeutally turned away from God. On this occasion, Paul is the more charitable and forgiving — Jesus is definitely the hard-liner! Thus the necessity for theology.
I do think that if the notion of a Personal God is accepted, then the idea of infallibility is not far away — otherwise we must assume that God's own word is itself suspect.
There is an argument that the Absolute nature of God does not a priori render Scripture itself infallible. The Church is well aware of this from the post-Englightenment disputes, as discussed above. I think the position is nuanced, but not beyond reason and logic.
The one traditional notion under constant review is that God alone is the direct author of Scripture. We no longer press this issue, although we do insist that its inspiration is Divine.
To me this is the most exciting arena of doctrinal investigation, and brings up a host of questions, such as:
What is the difference between inspiration and intuition, reason and revelation? and, Did the scribe know he was writing a text that would become Canonical and thus Infallible?
However, what I would like to ask is:
Do other religious traditions draw a distinction between 'infallible' and 'reliable' with regard to their sacra doctrina?
or put another way, how 'dependable' is a text, and what certitude can an adherent draw from it?
What effect has this on a text's exegesis?
Thomas
17th Angel
לבעוט את התחת ולקחת שמות
- Messages
- 9,437
- Reaction score
- 11
- Points
- 0
lol... Obviously not scripture, which is riddled with nothing but error and also stories/events that are not possible.... In a scientific sense..... Then again doctine obviously comes from the Latin for Doctrina, which suggests that it is teachings to a certain extent from scripture.... So "Incapable of error"? I would beg to differ lol...
Hi 17th —
That's why Catholic Doctrine does not say Scripture does not contain any errors.
Rather it says it transmits the truths God wishes to be made known, without error ... there's the difference.
Thomas
That's why Catholic Doctrine does not say Scripture does not contain any errors.
Rather it says it transmits the truths God wishes to be made known, without error ... there's the difference.
Thomas
17th Angel
לבעוט את התחת ולקחת שמות
- Messages
- 9,437
- Reaction score
- 11
- Points
- 0
It's just like a contract or a lawyer statement in a court.... Kinda smells "fresh" and is just nothing but loopholes for excuses ;\ If I were a catholic that wouldn't instill much confidence in my faith if it's "what god wishes to be made known" You know? No, I suppose you don't...
China Cat Sunflower
Nimrod
- Messages
- 2,924
- Reaction score
- 14
- Points
- 0
Scripture and doctrine seem to have pretty much evolved together in the case of Christian origins. Scripture is always written from a particular point of view and for an intended contemporary audience. Where Christianity has appropriated older material it is somewhat cantilevered over, rather than organically engaged with that scripture so doctrine in that sense seems to propound upon the text.
Chris
Chris
17th Angel
לבעוט את התחת ולקחת שמות
- Messages
- 9,437
- Reaction score
- 11
- Points
- 0
How else can you have doctrine without scripture? Or vice versa? (That is a question btw, not a dig.)
Hi 17th ...
I suppose it depends on your viewpoint.
I might add that "... In a scientific sense" is also a wonderful cop-out, isn't it? Especially when Scripture does not claim to be a scientific document (in the secular sense)
The point is, no-one offers an argument based on reason or logical as to why it cannot be infallible. Just the assertion that it can't because they do not accept the foundation premise of Christianity as such.
Before anyone leaps to the challenge, might I add that we've had some of the finest minds on the planet arguing the case both for and against, so I think I can say here, without meaning to insult anyone's intelligence, that I doubt that such an argument is forthcoming.
Thomas
I suppose it depends on your viewpoint.
I might add that "... In a scientific sense" is also a wonderful cop-out, isn't it? Especially when Scripture does not claim to be a scientific document (in the secular sense)
The point is, no-one offers an argument based on reason or logical as to why it cannot be infallible. Just the assertion that it can't because they do not accept the foundation premise of Christianity as such.
Before anyone leaps to the challenge, might I add that we've had some of the finest minds on the planet arguing the case both for and against, so I think I can say here, without meaning to insult anyone's intelligence, that I doubt that such an argument is forthcoming.
Thomas
17th Angel
לבעוט את התחת ולקחת שמות
- Messages
- 9,437
- Reaction score
- 11
- Points
- 0
lol, If religion was something I took serious with a passion I would easily match those arguments... Alas this is just something to kill time while at work.
-edit-
Something to ponder on, god is the perfect one aye? Man is an idiot who is far from perfect and makes many an error.... Aye? Who was it that actually wrote the bible and the Doctrines? god? Or man? :\ So to kick off tons of this could have been taken down in error so, you have error to begin with, also the meaning to it all, has god personally come down off his throne to explain it all? Or is it just some man sittin perched all high and mighty above the rest saying how he -thinks- it is to be? Either way, I do not believe you can say it is or isn't but I will go with it isn't simply because I don't like the idea of a god.
Actually, I should qualify the above statement.
St Thomas Aquinas has demonstrated in the Summa that everything turns on whether one accepts Revelation, or not.
If one does, and that's the big if, then the argument unfolds along the lines of the Aristotelian model. As he posed the argument in the thirteenth century, and it still stands as a model of Aristotelian philosophy and Christian metaphysics.
Thomas
St Thomas Aquinas has demonstrated in the Summa that everything turns on whether one accepts Revelation, or not.
If one does, and that's the big if, then the argument unfolds along the lines of the Aristotelian model. As he posed the argument in the thirteenth century, and it still stands as a model of Aristotelian philosophy and Christian metaphysics.
Thomas
Well the doctrine was there before the Scripture, in the sense there was a Christian message, a Christian community and a Christian praxis before the New Testament was written.
Thomas
taijasi
Gnōthi seauton
I think you misunderstand, Thomas. I am not "at loggerheads" regarding what's going on here. It's no different than it's ever been. You've been attacking my own beliefs, and those of anyone else who even MENTIONS Theosophy ... for several years now. Finally, however, we have your admission, in your own words, that "you are HERE TO CONDEMN."
At least you are finally honest about that ... fwiw.
Sorry, I didn't think that was what any Comparative-Religion forum was all about, much less this one. Some of us apparently ENJOY tearing into other people's belief systems, and attempting to KNOCK DOWN everything this is put on the table in a discussion ... even to the point of taking the proverbial ax to the trunk of the TREE. I'm glad my roots go deep enough to help keep this tree alive ... even despite ax-blow after ax-blow from our dear, master theologian.
I mean, hey - don't let me stop you from your little crusade. Keep that Spirit of the Inquisition alive, Thomas. Keep condemning others, for DARING to ask QUESTIONS, and for DARING to choose to believe OTHER - than what you and your Church tell us we SHOULD believe.
Have a nice day, and a nice time on your thread, telling us all how infallible you and YOUR messengers are ...
Just know that for every slanderous word and false accustation against OUR messengers, you will have to answer.
The difference between you and me, Thomas, is that I am not afraid to take you to task for dodging the issues, for changing the subject, and for BASHING another person's philosophy when you run out of arguments ... or when you know you don't have a snowball's chance in hell.
Your effort to turn that around, and to accuse me of ad hominem, is a pretty thin, LAME comeback indeed. I simply say, BACK UP YOUR BASHING, Thomas, instead of just launching ATTACK after ATTACK ... then claiming, "Oh, I'm just engaging you on the level of PHILOSOPHY," as if this excuses your Grand Inquisition and Albigensian Crusade. Your clothing is different, brother Jesuit, and your hair has a different part, but your ruthlessness and assiduousness have not changed ...
And no, I don't hesitate ... to criticize you, for SLANDERING HPB, and for babbling on, again & again, about how UNFOUNDED the Theosophical teachings appear to you. I don't have any problem whatsoever asking you to STOP being a JERK, and to talk about specific IDEAS, and to ADDRESS the specific, firsthand teachings of HPB, and other Theosophists ... or writers in the Theosophical tradition.
But you cannot do that, can you. Instead, it is YOU that constantly employ the straw man tactic, attempting to dodge the entire Theosophical worldview, altogether by simply saying, "Oh, this is not a RIGOROUS philosophy ... it is metaphysically UNSOUND ... it focuses exclusively on COSMOLOGY, and MY theology penetrates beyond to the TRUE NATURE OF GOD."
HOGWASH
I have shown, on another thread, that this is not the case. And I will happily REVISIT that argument, ANY TIME YOU LIKE, if you find the backbone.
But as we have seen, that discussion simply DROPPED AWAY, and once I demonstrated that we speak of the SAME, exact concepts, pointing to the SAME, exact Reality behind (or beyond) those concepts ... Thomas decided to take a vacation. I suppose the fishing in that spot became a little difficult, eh my friend?
Not convenient any more to continue a conversation, WHEN YOU HAVE BEEN SHOWN UP.
Ah well, I don't blame you. There you were, telling me I couldn't see past the tree in front of me, or the little forest clearing in which we both happen to find ourselves ... and suddenly you find that I'm telling you about the forest itself, what it looks like from over there, not to mention from above, from below, even from a Wholistic perspective ... and from the simple, natural level of Being Itself.
No, I don't blame you for bailing.
Btw, this is a brief reminder, according to the Wikipedia entry, of what a straw man argument really is:
For the record, Theosophists and others who have expressed interest in the Theosophical path (myself, et al) here at C-R, do NOT tell you on these forums - AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN - that "the Roman Catholic or Christian theology is unfounded, metaphysically unsound, a rip-off of other religious & philosophical ideas, etc."
We have NEVER said that. In fact, the closest that even I have ever come, is to point toward the EXISTING traditions of the time ... and to bring to light the fact that Christianity "borrowed" from - all of these various belief systems. Of course, this co-opting of ideas from every tradition, both exoteric & esoteric, is pretty much a rip-off as I see it ... but I think it is rather jarring to say so, and I wouldn't blame someone for immediately becoming defensive if I said that about his or her religion (spiritual path, worldview, etc.).
The problem, Thomas, is that you speak to me, and often enough to Nick, and occasionally others, AS IF WE DON'T HAVE FEELINGS, or as if OUR SPIRITUAL PHILOSOPHY AND WORLDVIEW DOESN'T MATTER TO US.
There is no basic Respect for the experiences we have been through, the challenges we have been faced with - and choices we have made, or the efforts we have made to answer the same Call of the Soul (or Spirit) which you claim ... to have received, and answered. You may not speak in these precise terms about such a Call, and you may or may not refer directly to your answer, either. Yet all of us simply take for granted - we make the ASSUMPTION - that such has taken place, and that if it hadn't, you wouldn't very likely even be here!
A pity, that in all your pomp and glory, as you prattle on about the learned doctors and their wisdom, you only know how to look down your nose at us, and FORCE DISTINCTIONS ... because we have come to Truth by a different Path - and a Path that SUITS us, PERFECTLY, I might add.
There is so much that could be discussed, so much that might be explored ... but there is absolutely NOTHING spiritually significant that can take place, and NO dialogue that will be meaningful, as long as we are -- THOSE misguided Theosophists, and while you are - in contrast - enlightened, spiritually `with it,' and `SAVED.'
Check carefully. Where there is a superiority complex, it will continue to get in the way ... whether as spiritual pride, or simply as a bit too much pluck over one's worldly wit & wisdom. These are not far apart, either, connected by a slippery slope, which I think you know ... every bit as well as I.
And I won't deny my own shortcomings ... my own missing of the mark. But I will also not simply stand by, and say nothing about your deliberate efforts at humiliating other people. Turn the other cheek, yes, as best as I'm able. Put up with a bit of vanity and presumptuousness, yes ... this is par for the course where personalities grow too big for their boots, from time to time.
But when you feel it is your RIGHT, and in fact - somehow, in some sick, twisted fashion, your spiritual DUTY - to seize another man, and all that he represents, by the throat, and to try and choke the proverbial life out of him ... do you really think your Blessed Saviour would advocate for that man's total, pacifistic acquiescence?
We have had this discussion at C-R before, and most tend to believe that no, a man has a right to defend himself. Remember that children's saying, "Sticks and stones ..." Well my friend, it may be true enough that "names shall never hurt us," as - at best - they can "damage" our pride. But that doesn't mean it therefore becomes okay, let alone ADMIRABLE, acceptable, much less NOBLE to enter a WAR OF IDEAS ... and to try and whittle one's opponent down by relentlessly attacking his belief system.
Think you that what we Theosophical types (if you must cast us all in this way) believe, is ANY less Spiritually significant and important to us, than what YOU believe, as a Roman Catholic?
Do you hear ME, or NICK, babbling on about Rene Guenon, St. Thomas Aquinas, or ANY Roman Catholic or Christian figure ... as being A FRAUD, A KOOK, MORALLY BANKRUPT, A RIP-OFF ARTIST regarding other ideas, etc.? If so, please show me WHERE.
The most I will concede, is that I myself have stated that Rat-zinger ought to watch his mouth, but did I even say, in saying this, that the man is ANY of the above? I will even grant that we all make mistakes, and that he may simply have made one, or two, etc. And immediately, Sir Thomas launches a DEFENSIVE BATTERY of post after post after post ... not realizing, all the while, that this is the LEAST of what a Theosophist feels, as you LAY INTO our Respected and Revered Society Founder.
No, Thomas, ONE of us here is TRYING, in VAIN I will point out, to KNOCK DOWN something which he doesn't like to see standing. And, since you leave me no choice, I will clarify that what you have engaged in, and what I have foolishly submitted myself to (in ignorance - I admit it, though not without folly or some recognition on my own part) ... is an old-fashioned, COCK-FIGHT.
But guess what kind of ROOSTER this really refers to.
So, KEEP TRYING TO KNOCK IT DOWN. There is a spiritual equivalent of Viagra, I'm sure, but I prefer to deal with this on my own terms ... and using all that I have been taught, not just in my undergraduate philosophy class, or at some kind of institution of higher education, concerned above all else with REPUTATION AND PRESTIGE.
True, a sincere disciple should remember ... that his reputation is everything. Your assertion that you are any more a disciple than myself, at this point, would speak volumes - yet show me ONE PLACE where I have ever said, implied or even remotely suggested that you are "less of a disciple," and less of a spiritual student, or aspirant, than myself.
How easy it must be, when one's belief system allows one in apparent `good conscience' (a new definition of this expression for me, I assure you) ... to simply SIZE UP another person's PHILOSOPHY and SPIRITUAL WORLDVIEW, then determine (by some set of standards which we have yet to see you produce, Thomas) -- conveniently and dismissively, that the other person's beliefs warrant his CONDEMNATION ... and FURTHER, that WE are FIT, and EMPOWERED (by WHAT agency I am not quite sure) TO DO THE CONDEMNING.
We see precisely this assertion, and effort, every time you attack the Theosophists, Thomas, with a clear, bold affirmation of your Crusade here ... and increasingly I begin to feel quite the fool, for engaging in your little p*ssing contest ... your cockfight. Freudian fears aside, I am embarrassed that I have let myself get dragged along this far, much less dusted myself off, gotten back on the horse, and played your little game of JOUST.
In a more noble era, maybe the tilting would be understandable, but the Fair Maiden to be won by this tournament is Someone I know to be accessible to us all ... and she will not be the SPOILS of either `victor,' nor can she be SPOILT at all, merely by your incessant jabs, or by your banging on about how destitute our Philosophy supposedly is of the Spirit of Wisdom.
And just WHAT exactly, is the official Church doctrine, regarding Sophia, regarding the Divine Feminine, regarding WOMAN?
Thomas, I could have rested my case about three years ago.
But, in all fairness, since I have bothered to reply on this thread in so lengthy a fashion, I know I must sit through at least one, last BASHING.
So, have at it, and make it a good one, eh? Get it all out of your system, as I'm pretty much done with playing your little JOUST/cockfight/p*ssing contest game ... and need to move on to something that's actually productive - not to mention POSITIVE.
Frankly, when it comes to Theosophy, I don't think you have it in you.
You are nothing but a PURE, NEGATIVE CHANNEL for Hatred, Bitterness, Destructive Criticism, Calumny, Misinformation and MUD-slinging.
I DARE you to try and come up with TEN positive things about the THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY and Movement, during or since HPB's day ... without cutting and pasting from some kind of external site or authority.
Challenge me to do the SAME, with regard to today's Roman Catholic Church, and LET'S SEE WHO FARES THE BETTER. That's the LAST little challenge I'll issue in your cockfight. And you know, I don't care, whether you take me up on it or not!
At least you are finally honest about that ... fwiw.
Sorry, I didn't think that was what any Comparative-Religion forum was all about, much less this one. Some of us apparently ENJOY tearing into other people's belief systems, and attempting to KNOCK DOWN everything this is put on the table in a discussion ... even to the point of taking the proverbial ax to the trunk of the TREE. I'm glad my roots go deep enough to help keep this tree alive ... even despite ax-blow after ax-blow from our dear, master theologian.
I mean, hey - don't let me stop you from your little crusade. Keep that Spirit of the Inquisition alive, Thomas. Keep condemning others, for DARING to ask QUESTIONS, and for DARING to choose to believe OTHER - than what you and your Church tell us we SHOULD believe.
Have a nice day, and a nice time on your thread, telling us all how infallible you and YOUR messengers are ...
Just know that for every slanderous word and false accustation against OUR messengers, you will have to answer.
The difference between you and me, Thomas, is that I am not afraid to take you to task for dodging the issues, for changing the subject, and for BASHING another person's philosophy when you run out of arguments ... or when you know you don't have a snowball's chance in hell.
Your effort to turn that around, and to accuse me of ad hominem, is a pretty thin, LAME comeback indeed. I simply say, BACK UP YOUR BASHING, Thomas, instead of just launching ATTACK after ATTACK ... then claiming, "Oh, I'm just engaging you on the level of PHILOSOPHY," as if this excuses your Grand Inquisition and Albigensian Crusade. Your clothing is different, brother Jesuit, and your hair has a different part, but your ruthlessness and assiduousness have not changed ...
And no, I don't hesitate ... to criticize you, for SLANDERING HPB, and for babbling on, again & again, about how UNFOUNDED the Theosophical teachings appear to you. I don't have any problem whatsoever asking you to STOP being a JERK, and to talk about specific IDEAS, and to ADDRESS the specific, firsthand teachings of HPB, and other Theosophists ... or writers in the Theosophical tradition.
But you cannot do that, can you. Instead, it is YOU that constantly employ the straw man tactic, attempting to dodge the entire Theosophical worldview, altogether by simply saying, "Oh, this is not a RIGOROUS philosophy ... it is metaphysically UNSOUND ... it focuses exclusively on COSMOLOGY, and MY theology penetrates beyond to the TRUE NATURE OF GOD."
HOGWASH
I have shown, on another thread, that this is not the case. And I will happily REVISIT that argument, ANY TIME YOU LIKE, if you find the backbone.
But as we have seen, that discussion simply DROPPED AWAY, and once I demonstrated that we speak of the SAME, exact concepts, pointing to the SAME, exact Reality behind (or beyond) those concepts ... Thomas decided to take a vacation. I suppose the fishing in that spot became a little difficult, eh my friend?
Not convenient any more to continue a conversation, WHEN YOU HAVE BEEN SHOWN UP.
Ah well, I don't blame you. There you were, telling me I couldn't see past the tree in front of me, or the little forest clearing in which we both happen to find ourselves ... and suddenly you find that I'm telling you about the forest itself, what it looks like from over there, not to mention from above, from below, even from a Wholistic perspective ... and from the simple, natural level of Being Itself.
No, I don't blame you for bailing.
Btw, this is a brief reminder, according to the Wikipedia entry, of what a straw man argument really is:
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. Often, the straw man is set up to deliberately overstate the opponent's position. A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.
Its name is derived from the practice of using straw men in combat training. In such training, a scarecrow is made in the image of the enemy with the single intent of attacking it.
And Thomas, every time you sit there and speak of Theosophy as unfounded, metaphysically unsound, a rip-off of other religious & philosophical ideas, etc. ... you are creating a STRAW-MAN image, or depiction of the Gupta Vidya.For the record, Theosophists and others who have expressed interest in the Theosophical path (myself, et al) here at C-R, do NOT tell you on these forums - AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN - that "the Roman Catholic or Christian theology is unfounded, metaphysically unsound, a rip-off of other religious & philosophical ideas, etc."
We have NEVER said that. In fact, the closest that even I have ever come, is to point toward the EXISTING traditions of the time ... and to bring to light the fact that Christianity "borrowed" from - all of these various belief systems. Of course, this co-opting of ideas from every tradition, both exoteric & esoteric, is pretty much a rip-off as I see it ... but I think it is rather jarring to say so, and I wouldn't blame someone for immediately becoming defensive if I said that about his or her religion (spiritual path, worldview, etc.).
The problem, Thomas, is that you speak to me, and often enough to Nick, and occasionally others, AS IF WE DON'T HAVE FEELINGS, or as if OUR SPIRITUAL PHILOSOPHY AND WORLDVIEW DOESN'T MATTER TO US.
There is no basic Respect for the experiences we have been through, the challenges we have been faced with - and choices we have made, or the efforts we have made to answer the same Call of the Soul (or Spirit) which you claim ... to have received, and answered. You may not speak in these precise terms about such a Call, and you may or may not refer directly to your answer, either. Yet all of us simply take for granted - we make the ASSUMPTION - that such has taken place, and that if it hadn't, you wouldn't very likely even be here!
A pity, that in all your pomp and glory, as you prattle on about the learned doctors and their wisdom, you only know how to look down your nose at us, and FORCE DISTINCTIONS ... because we have come to Truth by a different Path - and a Path that SUITS us, PERFECTLY, I might add.
There is so much that could be discussed, so much that might be explored ... but there is absolutely NOTHING spiritually significant that can take place, and NO dialogue that will be meaningful, as long as we are -- THOSE misguided Theosophists, and while you are - in contrast - enlightened, spiritually `with it,' and `SAVED.'
Check carefully. Where there is a superiority complex, it will continue to get in the way ... whether as spiritual pride, or simply as a bit too much pluck over one's worldly wit & wisdom. These are not far apart, either, connected by a slippery slope, which I think you know ... every bit as well as I.
And I won't deny my own shortcomings ... my own missing of the mark. But I will also not simply stand by, and say nothing about your deliberate efforts at humiliating other people. Turn the other cheek, yes, as best as I'm able. Put up with a bit of vanity and presumptuousness, yes ... this is par for the course where personalities grow too big for their boots, from time to time.
But when you feel it is your RIGHT, and in fact - somehow, in some sick, twisted fashion, your spiritual DUTY - to seize another man, and all that he represents, by the throat, and to try and choke the proverbial life out of him ... do you really think your Blessed Saviour would advocate for that man's total, pacifistic acquiescence?
We have had this discussion at C-R before, and most tend to believe that no, a man has a right to defend himself. Remember that children's saying, "Sticks and stones ..." Well my friend, it may be true enough that "names shall never hurt us," as - at best - they can "damage" our pride. But that doesn't mean it therefore becomes okay, let alone ADMIRABLE, acceptable, much less NOBLE to enter a WAR OF IDEAS ... and to try and whittle one's opponent down by relentlessly attacking his belief system.
Think you that what we Theosophical types (if you must cast us all in this way) believe, is ANY less Spiritually significant and important to us, than what YOU believe, as a Roman Catholic?
Do you hear ME, or NICK, babbling on about Rene Guenon, St. Thomas Aquinas, or ANY Roman Catholic or Christian figure ... as being A FRAUD, A KOOK, MORALLY BANKRUPT, A RIP-OFF ARTIST regarding other ideas, etc.? If so, please show me WHERE.
The most I will concede, is that I myself have stated that Rat-zinger ought to watch his mouth, but did I even say, in saying this, that the man is ANY of the above? I will even grant that we all make mistakes, and that he may simply have made one, or two, etc. And immediately, Sir Thomas launches a DEFENSIVE BATTERY of post after post after post ... not realizing, all the while, that this is the LEAST of what a Theosophist feels, as you LAY INTO our Respected and Revered Society Founder.
No, Thomas, ONE of us here is TRYING, in VAIN I will point out, to KNOCK DOWN something which he doesn't like to see standing. And, since you leave me no choice, I will clarify that what you have engaged in, and what I have foolishly submitted myself to (in ignorance - I admit it, though not without folly or some recognition on my own part) ... is an old-fashioned, COCK-FIGHT.
But guess what kind of ROOSTER this really refers to.
So, KEEP TRYING TO KNOCK IT DOWN. There is a spiritual equivalent of Viagra, I'm sure, but I prefer to deal with this on my own terms ... and using all that I have been taught, not just in my undergraduate philosophy class, or at some kind of institution of higher education, concerned above all else with REPUTATION AND PRESTIGE.
True, a sincere disciple should remember ... that his reputation is everything. Your assertion that you are any more a disciple than myself, at this point, would speak volumes - yet show me ONE PLACE where I have ever said, implied or even remotely suggested that you are "less of a disciple," and less of a spiritual student, or aspirant, than myself.
How easy it must be, when one's belief system allows one in apparent `good conscience' (a new definition of this expression for me, I assure you) ... to simply SIZE UP another person's PHILOSOPHY and SPIRITUAL WORLDVIEW, then determine (by some set of standards which we have yet to see you produce, Thomas) -- conveniently and dismissively, that the other person's beliefs warrant his CONDEMNATION ... and FURTHER, that WE are FIT, and EMPOWERED (by WHAT agency I am not quite sure) TO DO THE CONDEMNING.
We see precisely this assertion, and effort, every time you attack the Theosophists, Thomas, with a clear, bold affirmation of your Crusade here ... and increasingly I begin to feel quite the fool, for engaging in your little p*ssing contest ... your cockfight. Freudian fears aside, I am embarrassed that I have let myself get dragged along this far, much less dusted myself off, gotten back on the horse, and played your little game of JOUST.
In a more noble era, maybe the tilting would be understandable, but the Fair Maiden to be won by this tournament is Someone I know to be accessible to us all ... and she will not be the SPOILS of either `victor,' nor can she be SPOILT at all, merely by your incessant jabs, or by your banging on about how destitute our Philosophy supposedly is of the Spirit of Wisdom.
And just WHAT exactly, is the official Church doctrine, regarding Sophia, regarding the Divine Feminine, regarding WOMAN?
Thomas, I could have rested my case about three years ago.
But, in all fairness, since I have bothered to reply on this thread in so lengthy a fashion, I know I must sit through at least one, last BASHING.
So, have at it, and make it a good one, eh? Get it all out of your system, as I'm pretty much done with playing your little JOUST/cockfight/p*ssing contest game ... and need to move on to something that's actually productive - not to mention POSITIVE.
Frankly, when it comes to Theosophy, I don't think you have it in you.
You are nothing but a PURE, NEGATIVE CHANNEL for Hatred, Bitterness, Destructive Criticism, Calumny, Misinformation and MUD-slinging.
I DARE you to try and come up with TEN positive things about the THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY and Movement, during or since HPB's day ... without cutting and pasting from some kind of external site or authority.
Challenge me to do the SAME, with regard to today's Roman Catholic Church, and LET'S SEE WHO FARES THE BETTER. That's the LAST little challenge I'll issue in your cockfight. And you know, I don't care, whether you take me up on it or not!