The Infallibility of Doctrine

[Thomas]

Hi 17th —

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.

Sigh ... then we're both in the same boat — too busy earning a living to live a life, or make a fortune. If you could match Aquinas, then you're fortune would be assured, and your fame would long outlive you.

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?

We don't view man as by nature an idiot ... which demands almost us much faith in ourselves as in our Creator! But we don't believe that man is perfect, either. And his errors are numerous.

In fact the whole idea behind original sin is that, following the philosophical notion of God being Perfect, we do not accept the idea that he made a cock-up when he created man ... so if there's a cock-up somewhere, the evidence suggests its us.

Who was it that actually wrote the bible and the Doctrines? god? Or man? :\

Well we believe in Providence, so we would argue that point. We would say both. That's why Scripture is subject to so much philosophical inquiry, and why the first Christians snapped up the Greek methodology as being the best method to hand ... and one which endures ...

The continual unfolding of philosophy, the continual new work and insights being extracted from Socrates, Plato, Aristotle et al show their genius and their rigour — a genius and a rigour that is the common heritage of us all. The whole philosophical life of the West is indebted to them, and founded on them.

Equally the great humanitarians. In fact some of the most 'savage' had tremendous insight ... if had we listened to the words of the Native Americans instead of slaughtering them for the gold on which they stood, global warming might be nothing more than speculation!

Someone read me some Greek poetry from a pre-Chrstian era ... we are the same people, we haven't changed a bit, in our nature. Just improved the technology. And not without a burdensome cost — the more we create, the more we want, and yet we are astounded by 'simple' Third World communitites that have nothing, and yet are happy.

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?

Again, we believe God does have an expectation of man rising to his true nature.

At worst I would say God does not demand we get it right, and rewards our effort in trying.

But even as a pure humanist, the basic doctrines of the Great Traditions are all 'infallible' against the best of human ethics and morality: Love thy neighbour ... focus on the Real ... find a greater happiness in giving
rather than receiving ... in the realm of human ideas and ideals, leaving God aside, the messge is worth the effort.

Or is it just some man sittin perched all high and mighty above the rest saying how he -thinks- it is to be?

Again, against the history of ideas, the religious ideals that survive have been winnowed by reason and philosophy. There's a ton of discarded ideas for every jewel. The ones we hang on to suggest the speaker knew something of what he talked about, and that is valuable in itself.

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.

That's OK. But that doesn't present a truth, or even an argument. That's your choice. What we believe, really, is what comprises our faith. Back to Aquinas again. If you don't accept the basic premise, then there can be no discussion.

I do accept that it is an informed choice, however ... you have selected from the pool of ideas, and taken a stand. I accept that.

I'm not arguing the right-ness of Christian doctrine in the face of others, I'm simply asking for a comparative frame of reference. I don't for a moment expect anyone to 'buy' infallibility just because I'm a Catholic.

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Hello Andrew.

OK. I think you know I will fundamentally disagree on some of your recent assertions, but this game of words is getting us nowhere.

So can I extend the olive branch of peace?

Can we agree that I shall make no further reference at all to TS doctrine, unless invited?

In return all I ask is that you make no further reference to a subjective criticism of mine?

I am aware that you hold a teaching on your understanding of who the Founder of my tradition is, radically different from our perception of his Person and his Message. That is a part of your doctrine, and I am conscious that you might find it necessary to counterpoint TS doctrine with Christian orthodoxy in making a point, and understand that.

I will not reply or contest any of the Theosophical doctrines on that point, but will, if you will allow, maintain the right to respond only if and when I think that Christian doctrine has been inaccurately or unfairly presented, and only to present the matter in question from an northodox understanding. I will make no reference to the TS position nor any criticism of its presentation of mine.

I think that is fair? You of course would be free to do likewise.

+++

I am aware that this is a comparative religion forum. I do feel, however, that it is possible to make such references objectively without the need for voicing subjective responses.

I am open and willing to engage in discussion that might highlight issues, but will avoid subjective responses on my own part. I will stick strictly to arguments founded on theological and philosophical teachings, offering them as support of my position, as I would in discussion with any other tradition.

For my part, I will seek no direct response from Theosophy. Might I also add that to my best recollection I have rarely quoted and questioned a specific Theosophical text to initiate a discussion, whereas I have responded many times to negative TS criticisms of the orthodox teaching, especially with regard to the interpretation of Scripture.

So let's end this recrimination here.

I am happy to put our differences aside. We are both aware of the position each of us takes with regard to the other on the question of interpretation, but these are personal matters. I do believe we can conduct ourselves in gentlemanly fashion, objectively, for the benefit of ourselves and others who might share an interest.

So what do you say ... do we have a deal ... if my proposition is unacceptable, can we iron something out between us as a code of conduct within Forum guidelines?

In hope,

Thomas

 

[Snoopy]

The whole rests, of course, on the idea of a Personal God.

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

Without a Personal God, we have a human (the Buddha) – who taught for many years but his teachings were not written down until long after his death. So clearly there will be errors caused by failings of memory, translation, transcription, loss of texts…

http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/lost-without-translation-7089.html

Where does that leave infallibility?

Maybe this is one reason why the Buddha gave us the Kalama sutra:

"Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, 'The monk is our teacher.' Kalamas, when you yourselves know: 'These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,' enter on and abide in them.”

Kalama Sutta


Of course, the Kalama sutra may be fundamentally flawed!

s.

 

[taijasi]

Thomas,

I am interested in a discussion of ideas, and I believe that if ideas bear any real merit, they should be allowed to stand - or fall - on their own, without feeling a need to prop them up by citing authorities. I realize that there are several good reasons, both at C-R and in modern academia, for citing sources ... and that is something I have tried to do as often as possible. This is largely so that anyone interested will be able to follow up, do investigation on their own, and also observe that these ideas which I speak of collectively as `the esoteric philosophy' (or the Ageless Wisdom), are not arbitrary, and have not been invented in the past ~130 years.

I feel, that if we are a point of disagreement, you should feel free to make a critique of the philosophy itself, but only by addressing certain, specific points ... as examples of your accusations that we do not deal with "meta-cosmology," for instance. Or, if you yourself have evidence that what has been presented was only cobbled together (by HPB or otherwise) - without providing proper citations ... then by all means, take her, or me, or whomever to task for that!

But, in the same fashion that you yourself do not like what you have called ad hominem attacks, I find this sort of thing equally offensive, when addressed to the character and person of a DECEASED woman (and/or her deceased cohort). If you must attack someone for doing shoddy research, or perhaps for being a charlatan, then direct your accusations toward myself. For I, technically alive - and presently capable of at least providing some sort of rebuttal - should prove much more capable of countering your arguments (or at least, attempting to) ... than a collection of dead people!

You see? I would rather receive, address and if need be, own up to my own failures to embody the Theosophical Ideal(s) ... than to stand by and see you attack the character of HPB, et al ... and seek to dismiss the entire Theosophical philosophy (and way of life, that entire approach to both spirituality and religion) in one fell swoop, with a hasty brush of the hand.

We can speak as much, or as little, about Theosophy as you like, just as you will find that I am sometimes interested in discussions on Christian theology and teachings ... while at other times I am not the least bit interested, and would have to be goaded rather forcefully even to give my opinion. But I don't think you should hold back at all when you feel that the Christian teachings as you know and/or believe in them (as you interpret them, and/or as you have found that Roman Catholics tend to understand them) ... are being misrepresented.

On the Christian forums, I think you'll find that Nick, myself, et al will - at most - express a different opinion, perhaps also give some reason for why we believe otherwise. We may cite sources, and speak of other traditions, yet ultimately we will not say, "This is what you must believe, and this is HOW you must believe it!"

By your extending (everyone) the same courtesy on the ALT and ALT-ESOTERIC forums, I think we will be on the same page ... such that all continue to be free to express their individual opinions, even to say, "THIS is what (I think, or I have found) most Roman Catholics, most Buddhist, most Muslims, etc. to believe about ---" ... but ultimately, there should be no need to press the issue. After all, it is a discussion forum, and it's here for us all to read, to choose whether - and how - we want to respond, and to which threads ... as well as to start new threads when we have questions, or have something we want to share.

I do believe we are all on the same page here, more or less, and I continue to visualize this cyber-agora as but the modern, electronic equivalent of ancient Athens ... with some of the ready references of a modern-day Library of Alexandria fairly close at hand. I hope that there might come a growing recognition, or belief in the reality of a cyber-Temple ... as the Interfaith aspects and nature of C-R increasingly come to light, but this is something that can only happen with the cooperation, and determination, of each one of us. Even to approach the Temple steps ... (I cannot finish the sentence)

Thank you, Thomas, for the olive branch, and know that I do appreciate your willingness to approach things "in gentlemanly fashion." I will seek to likewise, for my part ... and I look forward to future discussions.

Namaskar,

~andrew

 

[Bruce Michael]

Sometimes truth is forbidden to enter where doctrine dwells.

Truth remains when doctrine has ceased its usefulness. Truth has insight beyond the concepts expounded and ignited in any age.

In order not to negate all possibility of change, no Master may claim infallibility.

-Br.Bruce

We must never give up deciding for ourselves; and decide importantly, in courtesy to the truth.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Andrew,

I have read you posts, and taken on board the points you raise.

Thank you, Thomas, for the olive branch, and know that I do appreciate your willingness to approach things "in gentlemanly fashion." I will seek to likewise, for my part ... and I look forward to future discussions.

Thank you, Andrew.

Thomas