Madam Blavatsky -- Queen of the Damned

[dedicate]

Hi. I'm using the term "damned" here in the spirit of the title of a Charles Fort masterpiece, "BOOK OF THE DAMNED".-- damned by conventionality, damned by mediocrity, damned by the 66% who will follow whatever is made status quo.
See, my response to thread, "New Age Religon and the NWO"

I believe Madam Blavatsky and her ideas have been much maligned by the mainstream and our society. What she did was to initiate the bringing into our intellectual culture the Eternal Truths, not found in encyclopedias or daily newspapers. Not found hitherto much anywhere in Western Socieity. We owe her a debt for that, as she was the first. (nice that it was a woman, huh? showing the newness and trueness of the new age being not what we expect but true never-the-less. Breaking down our prejudices?)..

In order to advance an idea it is best to be fair,, so I decided to randomly select a passage from a random one of her books. In this case from the book ISIS UNVEILED vol.II ch.6.

Interestingly, the Chapter begins with a mention of the divination method similar to the method I employed here to make a sample, as one method employed by the Council of Nicea to colate what we now know as the Bible.-- and from which apparently we get the word "Sort"

Here is the first two paragraphs of the chapter:

WE must not forget that the Christian Church owes its present canonical Gospels, and hence its whole religious dogmatism, to the Sortes Sanctorum. Unable to agree as to which were the most divinely-inspired of the numerous gospels extant in its time, the mysterious Council of Nicea concluded to leave the decision of the puzzling question to miraculous intervention. This Nicean Council may well be called mysterious. There was a mystery, first, in the mystical number of its 318 bishops, on which Barnabas (viii. 11, 12, 13) lays such a stress; added to this, there is no agreement among ancient writers as to the time and place of its assembly, nor even as to the bishop who presided. Notwithstanding the grandiloquent eulogium of Constantine,* Sabinus, the Bishop of Heraclea, affirms that "except Constantine, the emperor, and Eusebius Pamphilus, these bishops were a set of illiterate, simple creatures, that understood nothing"; which is equivalent to saying that they were a set of fools. Such was apparently the opinion entertained of them by Pappus, who tells us of the bit of magic resorted to to decide which were the true gospels. In his Synodicon to that Council Pappus says, having "promiscuously put all the books that were referred to the Council for determination under a communion-table in a church, they (the bishops) besought the Lord that the inspired writings might get upon the table, while the spurious ones remained underneath, and it happened accordingly." But we are not told who kept the keys of the council chamber over night!

On the authority of ecclesiastical eye-witnesses, therefore, we are at liberty to say that the Christian world owes its "Word of God" to a method of divination, for resorting to which the Church subsequently condemned unfortunate victims as conjurers, enchanters, magicians, witches, and vaticinators, and burnt them by thousands! In treating of this truly divine phenomenon of the self-sorting manuscripts, the Fathers of the Church say that God himself presides over the Sortes. As we have shown elsewhere, Augustine confesses that he himself used this sort of divination. But opinions, like revealed religions, are liable to change. That which for nearly fifteen hundred years was imposed on Christendom as a book, of which every word was written under the direct supervision of the Holy Ghost; of which not a syllable, nor a comma could be changed without sacrilege, is now being retranslated, revised, corrected, and clipped of whole verses, in some cases of entire chapters. And yet, as soon as the new edition is out, its doctors would have us accept it as a new "Revelation" of the nineteenth century, with the alternative of being held as an infidel. Thus, we see that, no more within than without its precincts, is the infallible Church to be trusted more than would be reasonably convenient. The forefathers of our modern divines found authority for the Sortes in the verse where it is said: "The lot is cast into the lap, but the whole disposing thereof is of the Lord";* and now, their direct heirs hold that "the whole disposing thereof is of the Devil." Perhaps, they are unconsciously beginning to endorse the doctrine of the Syrian Bardesanes, that the actions of God, as well as of man, are subject to necessity?

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course there is a lot there. And one must employ more than casual powers of mind (unlike the powers we employ to read a newspaper) to understand. But do we find anything evil about it? Actually I am hit by a subtle humorous or jovial character to the writing.. irony and such. I don't want to say much at this time, as it seems one should devote more than a passing to subject before making any final statements. But you may.

More later.

[kasalt]

Interesting thread title.

I am reminded of a story I read some years ago in a biography of Blavatsky published by the Theosophical Society, regarding the baptism of the infant Helena at the hands of a Russian Orthodox priest. According to this account, when the priest reached the point of cursing Satan, his robe caught fire from a candle, burning him and others severely. I cannot recall if the priest died from his wounds. Also, later on in her life Blavatsky claimed that exorcisms were performed on her by Russian Orthodox priests--apparently to no avail (although I don't know why they were performed on her in the first place).

Blavatsky has also been accused of promoting racist ideology in her writings. In The Secret Doctrine, she wrote:Mankind is obviously divided into god-informed men and lower human creatures. The intellectual difference between the Aryan and other civilized nations and such savages as the South Sea Islanders, is inexplicable on any other grounds. No amount of culture, nor generations of training amid civilization, could raise such human specimens as the Bushmen, the Veddhas of Ceylon, and some African tribes, to the same intellectual level as the Aryans, the Semites, and the Turanians so called. The “sacred spark” is missing in them and it is they who are the only inferior races on the globe, now happily — owing to the wise adjustment of nature which ever works in that direction — fast dying out. Verily mankind is “of one blood,” but not of the same essence. We are the hot-house, artificially quickened plants in nature, having in us a spark, which in them is latent.
(Source: http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/sd/sd2-1-23.htm )

[kasalt]

I should add that Blavatsky was suspected of engaging in fraudulent activities:

[Blavatsky’s housekeeper, Emma Cutting, demonstrated] how she and HPB had made a doll together, which they ... manipulated on a long bamboo pole in semi-darkness to provide the Master’s alleged apparitions. Emma had also dropped “precipitated” letters on to Theosophical heads from holes in the ceiling, while her husband had made sliding panels and hidden entrances into the shrine room [adjoining HPB’s bedroom] to facilitate Blavatsky’s comings and goings and make possible the substitution of all the brooches, dishes and other objects that she used in her demonstrations [i.e., as purported materializations or “apports”]....

The Russian journalist V. S. Solovieff claimed to have caught [Blavatsky] red-handed with the silver bells which produced astral music [in séances].... Blavatsky confessed to Solovieff quite bluntly that the phenomena were fraudulent, adding that one must deceive men in order to rule them.

[dedicate]

Racist? Want to play that card? Well it is true. Racism is the part of the our cultural "BOOK OF THE DAMNED". It is not allowed in our society to be a racist. Even a hint,, and now it is off to the gulag with you. (That and Bias, Discrimnating, and Prejudiced).

But racism is a part of Darwinism, is it not? Accepted by a good # of people is the Darwin theory of survival of the fittest. If only the fittest succeed then how is it that the white man over came the Indian and Black African folk? This is racism. -- the white race was more fit to survive. I'm not advocating the idea,, and I don't believe in Darwin.. but racism is more a part of our cultural ideaolgy than we realize.

That aside.-- racism. Yes. -- but go back to my "New Age Religion and the NWO" thread posted by Light. Both good and bad people USE THE SAME IDEAS AND METHODS.. the bad people will use the truth to kill and ply asunder, while the good people will use the truth to help and bring about. Racism for good and Racism for evil..

[dedicate]

according to Theosophical teachings, an example.--- some 100,000 thousand years ago there were only two races on earth,, the then Atlanteans and the rudiments of the previous race, the Lamarians. We now call those reamaining race decendants, Orientals and Africans.

here we see,, the civilization is destroyed (Atlantis and Lumaria), and replaced by a more advanced race. In our case the Ayrians have replaced the Atlantians as the most prominent race on the Earth today. Also, as the new race gaines ground the older races fade out.

This is racism. I agree. The new races are more advanced. The Atlanteans were more advanced than the Lumarians. The Lumarians replaced the Hyperboreans. This is Racism. This is natural evolution of humanty.

But the Theosopical thinker will not use this knowledge to keep the other races down,, and will not look down on a member of another race. There are many many factors and we find many many advanced beings occupying any race. And we find many many low calibre beings in the White (most advanced) race. Also it is told that the coming race (very soon!) of all people on earth will be ONE.-- not white, not black, not oriental, something new.

I know this is difficult for a lot of people to accept. But this is the teaching and possibly the true history and state of things. It is a racial theory as Kesalt points out. It is good that he brought this up first thing. That way we can deal with it and move on. Which I hopefully have done by way of explaining..

To those who believe there can only be "bad" racism.. Do a study of Eugenics.-- you know the theory the NWO Keepers use on us when the put poison in our food, make us get a licence to breed, put us in the cremetorium, etcc.... I would be surprised if you did not find much information on the "good" practice of Eugenics ie.. thoughtful breeding, healthful habits, etc.. But this, like racism, has become a dirty word to the mediocre in society, the mainstream, as part of the pushy forced endoctrination system agenda. They don't want us to find the good!

[1977]

Blavatsky is indeed a very interesting writer, as long as one reads her with a critical eye. Apparently the "Pappus" that she quotes was actually the 17th century translator of the Synodicon: http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/manuscripts/vetus_synodicon.htm
The Vetus Synodicon is an anonymous work listing all the councils of the church up to 887 AD, and so presumably written soon after. Each council is covered by a single chapter. The author has digested material from the Ecclesiastical Histories of Eusebius, Socrates, etc. However the compiler adds small details not recorded by these historians -- the number of bishops attending synods, etc -- which the editors suggest he invented himself. Some of the synods are doubtful or imaginary. "In his zeal ... the writer was anything but a careful researcher, and although in places his sources or copyists may be at fault, he himself must be held responsible for most of those numerous errors which in the past have prevented scholars from treating the SV as a historical document above suspicion." (Duffy p. xv)
...
In 1601 Johannes Pappus (1549-1610), a Lutheran theologian of Strasbourg, published the first edition of the text, chapters 1-160, with a Latin translation and notes.

So it seems that while Blavatsky did not made up this story, neither Pappus nor the actual writer was a direct eyewitness. The Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature (http://books.google.com/books?dq=pappus+synodicon&pg=PA762&id=DTErAAAAYAAJ), which is by no means an objective source, tersely dismisses it with "This is universully acknowledged to be a fable." Is there a grain of truth in it? Who knows?

[uncia]

Hi. I'm using the term "damned" here in the spirit of the title of a Charles Fort masterpiece, "BOOK OF THE DAMNED".-- damned by conventionality, damned by mediocrity, damned by the 66% who will follow whatever is made status quo.
See, my response to thread, "New Age Religon and the NWO"

I believe Madam Blavatsky and her ideas have been much maligned by the mainstream and our society. What she did was to initiate the bringing into our intellectual culture the Eternal Truths, not found in encyclopedias or daily newspapers. Not found hitherto much anywhere in Western Socieity. We owe her a debt for that, as she was the first. (nice that it was a woman, huh? showing the newness and trueness of the new age being not what we expect but true never-the-less. Breaking down our prejudices?)..

In order to advance an idea it is best to be fair,, so I decided to randomly select a passage from a random one of her books. In this case from the book ISIS UNVEILED vol.II ch.6.

Interestingly, the Chapter begins with a mention of the divination method similar to the method I employed here to make a sample, as one method employed by the Council of Nicea to colate what we now know as the Bible.-- and from which apparently we get the word "Sort"

Here is the first two paragraphs of the chapter:

WE must not forget that the Christian Church owes its present canonical Gospels, and hence its whole religious dogmatism, to the Sortes Sanctorum. Unable to agree as to which were the most divinely-inspired of the numerous gospels extant in its time, the mysterious Council of Nicea concluded to leave the decision of the puzzling question to miraculous intervention. This Nicean Council may well be called mysterious. There was a mystery, first, in the mystical number of its 318 bishops, on which Barnabas (viii. 11, 12, 13) lays such a stress; added to this, there is no agreement among ancient writers as to the time and place of its assembly, nor even as to the bishop who presided. Notwithstanding the grandiloquent eulogium of Constantine,* Sabinus, the Bishop of Heraclea, affirms that "except Constantine, the emperor, and Eusebius Pamphilus, these bishops were a set of illiterate, simple creatures, that understood nothing"; which is equivalent to saying that they were a set of fools. Such was apparently the opinion entertained of them by Pappus, who tells us of the bit of magic resorted to to decide which were the true gospels. In his Synodicon to that Council Pappus says, having "promiscuously put all the books that were referred to the Council for determination under a communion-table in a church, they (the bishops) besought the Lord that the inspired writings might get upon the table, while the spurious ones remained underneath, and it happened accordingly." But we are not told who kept the keys of the council chamber over night!

On the authority of ecclesiastical eye-witnesses, therefore, we are at liberty to say that the Christian world owes its "Word of God" to a method of divination, for resorting to which the Church subsequently condemned unfortunate victims as conjurers, enchanters, magicians, witches, and vaticinators, and burnt them by thousands! In treating of this truly divine phenomenon of the self-sorting manuscripts, the Fathers of the Church say that God himself presides over the Sortes. As we have shown elsewhere, Augustine confesses that he himself used this sort of divination. But opinions, like revealed religions, are liable to change. That which for nearly fifteen hundred years was imposed on Christendom as a book, of which every word was written under the direct supervision of the Holy Ghost; of which not a syllable, nor a comma could be changed without sacrilege, is now being retranslated, revised, corrected, and clipped of whole verses, in some cases of entire chapters. And yet, as soon as the new edition is out, its doctors would have us accept it as a new "Revelation" of the nineteenth century, with the alternative of being held as an infidel. Thus, we see that, no more within than without its precincts, is the infallible Church to be trusted more than would be reasonably convenient. The forefathers of our modern divines found authority for the Sortes in the verse where it is said: "The lot is cast into the lap, but the whole disposing thereof is of the Lord";* and now, their direct heirs hold that "the whole disposing thereof is of the Devil." Perhaps, they are unconsciously beginning to endorse the doctrine of the Syrian Bardesanes, that the actions of God, as well as of man, are subject to necessity?

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course there is a lot there. And one must employ more than casual powers of mind (unlike the powers we employ to read a newspaper) to understand. But do we find anything evil about it? Actually I am hit by a subtle humorous or jovial character to the writing.. irony and such. I don't want to say much at this time, as it seems one should devote more than a passing to subject before making any final statements. But you may.

More later.
I find this turgid nonsense one of the biggest turn offs to religion. The fact is that the development of the biblical canon is an evolutionary matter, in which every age has had its own ideas. I think that what is being spouted here is not truth objectively stated, but religion turned into propaganda to advance some cause, or ulterior motive.

[dedicate]

Yes. Much maligned. I'm not surprised by your response, Uncia, considering Christians fail to find any point of unity even among themselves. Whatever might be foreign to them is either attacked or turned from in disgust (think American Indian or Irish Catholic/Protestant hate). This is not the true Chrisian way, but is often the way so-called Christians behave.

But the Universe is big and man is limited by the limits he imposes. It would be small of anyone to believe that all knowledge of all things is contained in one book, the one and only true source of religious instructions,, with no other Divine message or messenger available,, no new experiences waiting on the horizon. I think this is what Blavatsky is aluding to in these first two paragraphs. -- The majority of Christians only believe they have the all and all, but the facts point to something else, I.E. most Christians do not realize what it is they are involved in!

------------------------- Blavatsky continued ------------------------

It was no doubt, also, according to strict "necessity" that the Neoplatonists were so summarily dealt with by the Christian mob. In those days, the doctrines of the Hindu naturalists and antediluvian Pyrrhonists were forgotten, if they ever had been known at all, to any but a few philosophers; and Mr. Darwin, with his modern discoveries, had not even been mentioned in the prophesies. In this case the law of the survival of the fittest was reversed; the Neo-platonists were doomed to destruction from the day when they openly sided with Aristotle.

At the beginning of the fourth century crowds began gathering at the door of the academy where the learned and unfortunate Hypatia expounded the doctrines of the divine Plato and Plotinus, and thereby impeded the progress of Christian proselytism. She too successfully dispelled the mist hanging over the religious "mysteries" invented by the Fathers, not to be considered dangerous. This alone would have been sufficient to imperil both herself and her followers. It was precisely the teachings of this Pagan philosopher, which had been so freely borrowed by the Christians to give a finishing touch to their otherwise incomprehensible scheme, that had seduced so many into joining the new religion; and now the Platonic light began shining so inconveniently bright upon the pious patchwork, as to allow every one to see whence the "revealed" doctrines were derived. But there was a still greater peril. Hypatia had studied under Plutarch, the head of the Athenian school, and had learned all the secrets of theurgy. While she lived to instruct the multitude, no divine miracles could be produced before one who could divulge the natural causes by which they took place. Her doom was sealed by Cyril, whose eloquence she eclipsed, and whose authority, built on degrading superstitions, had to yield before hers, which was erected on the rock of immutable natural law. It is more than curious that Cave, the author of the Lives of the Fathers, should find it incredible that Cyril sanctioned her murder on account of his "general character." A saint who will sell the gold and silver vessels of his church, and then, after spending the money, lie at his trial, as he did, may well be suspected of anything. Besides, in this case, the Church had to fight for her life, to say nothing of her future supremacy. Alone, the hated and erudite Pagan scholars, and the no less learned Gnostics, held in their doctrines the hitherto concealed wires of all these theological marionettes. Once the curtain should be lifted, the connection between the old Pagan and the new Christian religions would be exposed; and then, what would have become of the Mysteries into which it is sin and blasphemy to pry? With such a coincidence of the astronomical allegories of various Pagan myths with the dates adopted by Christianity for the nativity, crucifixion, and resurrection, and such an identity of rites and ceremonies, what would have been the fate of the new religion, had not the Church, under the pretext of serving Christ, got rid of the too-well-informed philosophers? To guess what, if the coup d'etat had then failed, might have been the prevailing religion in our own century would indeed, be a hard task. But, in all probability, the state of things which made of the middle ages a period of intellectual darkness, which degraded the nations of the Occident, and lowered the European of those days almost to the level of a Papuan savage -- could not have occurred.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[uncia]

Yes. Much maligned. I'm not surprised by your response, Uncia, considering Christians fail to find any point of unity even among themselves. Whatever might be foreign to them is either attacked or turned from in disgust (think American Indian or Irish Catholic/Protestant hate). This is not the true Chrisian way, but is often the way so-called Christians behave.

If you are going to spout out this undiluted propaganda, you must learn to take the fair criticism. This is the kind of nonsense that, in unfairly slandering the true church by representing it ony by its meanest adherents and most proposterous historical accounts, gave rise to Nazism, Communism and every form of Atheism that sought to destroy Christianity.


But the Universe is big and man is limited by the limits he imposes. It would be small of anyone to believe that all knowledge of all things is contained in one book, the one and only true source of religious instructions,, with no other Divine message or messenger available,, no new experiences waiting on the horizon. I think this is what Blavatsky is aluding to in these first two paragraphs. -- The majority of Christians only believe they have the all and all, but the facts point to something else, I.E. most Christians do not realize what it is they are involved in!

There is enough in the bible to provide an education for 1000 years.


------------------------- Blavatsky continued ------------------------

It was no doubt, also, according to strict "necessity" that the Neoplatonists were so summarily dealt with by the Christian mob. In those days, the doctrines of the Hindu naturalists and antediluvian Pyrrhonists were forgotten, if they ever had been known at all, to any but a few philosophers; and Mr. Darwin, with his modern discoveries, had not even been mentioned in the prophesies. In this case the law of the survival of the fittest was reversed; the Neo-platonists were doomed to destruction from the day when they openly sided with Aristotle.

At the beginning of the fourth century crowds began gathering at the door of the academy where the learned and unfortunate Hypatia expounded the doctrines of the divine Plato and Plotinus, and thereby impeded the progress of Christian proselytism. She too successfully dispelled the mist hanging over the religious "mysteries" invented by the Fathers, not to be considered dangerous. This alone would have been sufficient to imperil both herself and her followers. It was precisely the teachings of this Pagan philosopher, which had been so freely borrowed by the Christians to give a finishing touch to their otherwise incomprehensible scheme, that had seduced so many into joining the new religion; and now the Platonic light began shining so inconveniently bright upon the pious patchwork, as to allow every one to see whence the "revealed" doctrines were derived. But there was a still greater peril. Hypatia had studied under Plutarch, the head of the Athenian school, and had learned all the secrets of theurgy. While she lived to instruct the multitude, no divine miracles could be produced before one who could divulge the natural causes by which they took place. Her doom was sealed by Cyril, whose eloquence she eclipsed, and whose authority, built on degrading superstitions, had to yield before hers, which was erected on the rock of immutable natural law. It is more than curious that Cave, the author of the Lives of the Fathers, should find it incredible that Cyril sanctioned her murder on account of his "general character." A saint who will sell the gold and silver vessels of his church, and then, after spending the money, lie at his trial, as he did, may well be suspected of anything. Besides, in this case, the Church had to fight for her life, to say nothing of her future supremacy. Alone, the hated and erudite Pagan scholars, and the no less learned Gnostics, held in their doctrines the hitherto concealed wires of all these theological marionettes. Once the curtain should be lifted, the connection between the old Pagan and the new Christian religions would be exposed; and then, what would have become of the Mysteries into which it is sin and blasphemy to pry? With such a coincidence of the astronomical allegories of various Pagan myths with the dates adopted by Christianity for the nativity, crucifixion, and resurrection, and such an identity of rites and ceremonies, what would have been the fate of the new religion, had not the Church, under the pretext of serving Christ, got rid of the too-well-informed philosophers? To guess what, if the coup d'etat had then failed, might have been the prevailing religion in our own century would indeed, be a hard task. But, in all probability, the state of things which made of the middle ages a period of intellectual darkness, which degraded the nations of the Occident, and lowered the European of those days almost to the level of a Papuan savage -- could not have occurred.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Neoplatanism was always garbage (reincarnation? - the author surreptiously avoids the reference to that peccadillo). The darkness of middle ages was, IMHO, due in the main the rise of the papacy and the antichrist spirit within the papacy; and in the east, due to the corruption of the church by wealth. The Papacy was the antithesis of true learning, and sought political domination at the expense of learning. It was not until the advent of Protestantism that Christianity began once again to revive. Of course philosophers would say it was also due to the rediscovery of the Greek philosophers such as Aristotle, but here one must distinguish religion from philosophy, which unfortunately many in the Roman Catholic system failed to do.

[dedicate]

I was just testing the waters -- seeing if uncia was a true fundamentalist. Now I know your perspective on things theological. Try not to take it too personal, that stuff I said about Christians not getting along even with other denominations. It's good that you brought up your comments. I'm not against critisism, because then I know what other people are thinking and believing and seeing.

The fact is I opened the book to a random page,, not having ever even read anything by Blavatsky. I believe though, I could have opened to a page discussing Buddhism or Hinduism just as well.. and there may have been critisims of the Hindu cast system or the void concept. I don't know. I just happen to land on this subject. We might also find Blavatsky saying much good about Christianianty. Too soon to say just yet.

I don't think it is a bad thing to be a Chrisitian. You can find many threads and post by me, promoting Christianity. It is fine with me and I see nothing wrong with a person being Christian. I see the true good that can come about from the practice.

You can use your life and study just the Bible. Fine with me. You may get a lot out of it. You may look out just one window for a 1,000 million years and get a lot of it. Fine with me too. You could do that. The only problem I see is most Christians fail to see there are other windows and people who need wider vistas than their own. I know there are people who need more than what I need. That's all.

The idea of reincarnation has not been sidestepped here. I don't think reincarnation has to be mentioned on every page, does it? It's not suspicious that it was not mentioned. I'm sure I know your view on the subject.

I am also pretty sure all mention of reincarnation was removed from the KJV Bible. There are a few scriptures that allude to reincarnation. But mostly the doctrine has been totally scrapped by the modern Christian. Funny though, because, there is more evidence for Reincarnation than Eternal Heavan and Hell.-- in the Bible and outside the Bible. And please don't start quoting scripture to proove your point about eternal heaven and hell-- I'm not all that uneducated on the Bible contents, and I could quote the same texts and explain how that is not what is being said.. Come up with something original to make your point of eternal Hell please, if at all.

[uncia]

I was just testing the waters -- seeing if uncia was a true fundamentalist. Now I know your perspective on things theological. Try not to take it too personal, that stuff I said about Christians not getting along even with other denominations. It's good that you brought up your comments. I'm not against critisism, because then I know what other people are thinking and believing and seeing.

Religion is an educational experience. No-one has all the answers. Not even Christians, many of whom are sadly deluded on many issues. The key thing is to start out on the right path and continue along it cf. John Bunyan's Pilgrims Progress.


The fact is I opened the book to a random page,, not having ever even read anything by Blavatsky. I believe though, I could have opened to a page discussing Buddhism or Hinduism just as well.. and there may have been critisims of the Hindu cast system or the void concept. I don't know. I just happen to land on this subject. We might also find Blavatsky saying much good about Christianianty. Too soon to say just yet.

I find your quotes interesting. I knew nothing of Blavatsky or Theosophy until I read your posts. Now I understand quite a lot. By all means continue posting excerpts. I always found the topic of Theosophy a huge turn off, simply because it tries to mingle human philosophy with revealed religion. If you have ever read Thomas Aquinas, you are faced with the same problem. You spend huge amounts of time studying what in the end turns out to be rubbish. If you have time for that sort of thing, so be it. I don't.


I don't think it is a bad thing to be a Chrisitian. You can find many threads and post by me, promoting Christianity. It is fine with me and I see nothing wrong with a person being Christian. I see the true good that can come about from the practice.

You can use your life and study just the Bible. Fine with me. You may get a lot out of it. You may look out just one window for a 1,000 million years and get a lot of it. Fine with me too. You could do that. The only problem I see is most Christians fail to see there are other windows and people who need wider vistas than their own. I know there are people who need more than what I need. That's all.

Most people need to be able to separate truth from falsehood. I don't think you have all the answers, and nor are they all found in the bible. For instance, you deride fundamentalism as you see it, but actually there is no religion other than fundamentalism as you term it. If its not fundamentalism - i.e. fundamentally as revealed to man - then its human invention aka hypocrisy which as you know, Christ condemned.


The idea of reincarnation has not been sidestepped here. I don't think reincarnation has to be mentioned on every page, does it? It's not suspicious that it was not mentioned. I'm sure I know your view on the subject.

If you knew nothing of Neoplatanism, you would think that Hypatia was a saint. Unfortunately she seems to have fallen from grace, from her pure study of mathematics as taught her by her father, to become a figurehead of the false religion. Same with Blavatsky.

The bible says "women are not permited to teach" and the reason for that is that Eve was deceived. This is a fundamental truth and the way it is with women. They start off on a good path, but if left to their own devices, they get easily deceived. Hypatia was deceived by Neoplatanism and it seems that Blavatsky too was deceived by human philosophy. Whenever you see a woman as a religious figure head, the first thing you do is check whether she is deceived. Of course many men are deceived too, but not all. Nearly all female religious figure heads are deceived.



I am also pretty sure all mention of reincarnation was removed from the KJV Bible. There are a few scriptures that allude to reincarnation. But mostly the doctrine has been totally scrapped by the modern Christian. Funny though, because, there is more evidence for Reincarnation than Eternal Heavan and Hell.-- in the Bible and outside the Bible. And please don't start quoting scripture to proove your point about eternal heaven and hell-- I'm not all that uneducated on the Bible contents, and I could quote the same texts and explain how that is not what is being said.. Come up with something original to make your point of eternal Hell please, if at all.
Hell? if you want proof of hell, go there. Seems a strange way to prove it though.

[dedicate]

Theosophy is not a religion, or sect. Lets just get that clear. But why mince words.. if you want to call it one,, fine/

Also, I did not say anything about Hell,, except that people are not sent to hell eternally. People who believe in reincarnation also believe in hell. I didn't say there wasn't a Hell. I said there wasn't an eternal Hell. Your the second fundamentalist on this board who has missed this same point in the same way. (Ask Questions!)

Fundamentalist is not the same as fundamentals (For example -- The Eucharist is a fundamental to many Christians, but not a fundamentalist belief). Lets also get that clear.

Fundamentalist hold certain beliefs in common, and tend to see things the same way. I could list 20 fundamentalist beliefs that most christians hold,, but not all Christians hold. These belief are in my opinion all incorrect.. for example.

Christianity is the only valid religion.

Jesus was God.

ETERNAL HELL

One way to Salvation -- and I know what that is.

The Bible is the only Word of God

After death,, only heaven or hell, eternally.

There are others,, and these ideas shade the fundamentalists other ways of interpreting the bible and religion. Thus a fundamentalists. The fundamentalist is exclusive and rejects all else out of hand. As you can see by the list,, there is always only one way for the fundamentalist AND THEY KNOW WHAT THAT ONE WAY IS!!! This is fundamentalism,, not "the fundamentals".

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now this is an interesting statement -- The bible says "women are not permited to teach" and the reason for that is that Eve was deceived. This is a fundamental truth and the way it is with women. They start off on a good path, but if left to their own devices, they get easily deceived. Hypatia was deceived by Neoplatanism and it seems that Blavatsky too was deceived by human philosophy. Whenever you see a woman as a religious figure head, the first thing you do is check whether she is deceived. Of course many men are deceived too, but not all. Nearly all female religious figure heads are deceived. --

Goooood! I like this. This is thinking outside the box. Many people will take offence to this but I like it. It is news to me, but has the ring of truth. I'm sure there are exceptions, but the rule is female figure heads are deceived. It is part of their DNA so to speak to accept some guidance from the male (Oh.. did you know Blavatsky was receiving some guidance from the male, El.Morya? in her forming of the Theosophical Society? ). Sounds like there is some truth to this theory, and makes for a good rule of thumb when considering such things as Woman For President, or Woman as Police officer. Good thinking outside the box.

p.s. keep commenting uncia.. because History is not my most strong subject. Seems that you know more about things like Medaeval Civilization and Neo-Platonism than I do. Good. Even though you challenge some of these ideas Blavatsky presents,,, I see she is bringing up actual issues.

[uncia]

I didn't say there wasn't a Hell. I said there wasn't an eternal Hell. Your the second fundamentalist on this board who has missed this same point in the same way. (Ask Questions!)

The bible uses the world hell in two entirely different senses. This is a translation fault in the KJV and is to be regretted. In the OT, hell stands for Sheol, meaning the grave, where dead people go. Spirits reside there awaiting judgment. In the NT, hell is used to translate 'gehenna' which was a place outside of Jerusalem where the refuse was thrown, and where fires burnt eternally.

It stands to reason that if there is a hell in the NT sense, it is eternal. What piece of garbage did you throw away that you ever retrieved? If this life is given to one to sanctify soul and spirit and prove one worthy of eternal life, then if one fails to show oneself so worthy, why and how should one be given a second chance? If the punishment of God is the destruction of one's soul, then surely it will remain destroyed?

Mat 10:28 "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."


Fundamentalist is not the same as fundamentals (For example -- The Eucharist is a fundamental to many Christians, but not a fundamentalist belief). Lets also get that clear.

Depends on what you mean by the belief in the Eucharist. Clearly the Eucharist is predicated upon meeting together. If you have been excommunicated, formally or informally, or if it is intolerable that you attend a particular congregation, then by definition, you can't celebrate it. However any denomination that rejects the Eucharist on a point of principle would clearly be heretical; e.g. Quakers.


Fundamentalist hold certain beliefs in common, and tend to see things the same way. I could list 20 fundamentalist beliefs that most christians hold,, but not all Christians hold. These belief are in my opinion all incorrect.. for example.

Christianity is the only valid religion.

Jesus was God.

ETERNAL HELL

One way to Salvation -- and I know what that is.

The Bible is the only Word of God

After death,, only heaven or hell, eternally.

There are others,, and these ideas shade the fundamentalists other ways of interpreting the bible and religion. Thus a fundamentalists. The fundamentalist is exclusive and rejects all else out of hand. As you can see by the list,, there is always only one way for the fundamentalist AND THEY KNOW WHAT THAT ONE WAY IS!!! This is fundamentalism,, not "the fundamentals".

That pretty much sums up true Christianity. It is a supremacist religion, make no mistake. It treats all other religions as at best subservient and at worst antagonistic.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now this is an interesting statement -- The bible says "women are not permited to teach" and the reason for that is that Eve was deceived. This is a fundamental truth and the way it is with women. They start off on a good path, but if left to their own devices, they get easily deceived. Hypatia was deceived by Neoplatanism and it seems that Blavatsky too was deceived by human philosophy. Whenever you see a woman as a religious figure head, the first thing you do is check whether she is deceived. Of course many men are deceived too, but not all. Nearly all female religious figure heads are deceived. --

Goooood! I like this. This is thinking outside the box. Many people will take offence to this but I like it. It is news to me, but has the ring of truth. I'm sure there are exceptions, but the rule is female figure heads are deceived. It is part of their DNA so to speak to accept some guidance from the male (Oh.. did you know Blavatsky was receiving some guidance from the male, El.Morya? in her forming of the Theosophical Society? ). Sounds like there is some truth to this theory, and makes for a good rule of thumb when considering such things as Woman For President, or Woman as Police officer. Good thinking outside the box.

I am glad you agree. Actually most Christians would disagree - cf Anglican women priests. However I am, along with the bible, right and Anglicanism is but a heretical sect.

[dedicate]

That's what I meant,, by asking you not to quote the Bible about an eternal Hell. "It stands to reason that if there is a hell in the NT sense, it is eternal." It doesn't stand to reason. It doesn't stand up to any reason at all. From the limited fundamentalist view,, I can see the reason,-- ie what could your life and religion mean if there was no eternal Hell to send the unbelievers? What good would it mean to you if you spent all your life believing in oNe life and one salvation, one religion and were met by a bunch of Buddhist in the afterword? Yes, I can see the faulty reasoning there.

And still,--- There is no scripture support of eternal Hell. -- just Hell. No mention of eternity there.

"destroy your soul"...? Well according to that scripture how is that one destoys the body in Hell? the body has already been destroyed by the ground and decay? And what is the soul? and if the Soul is destroyed then what is left to suffer for eternity? And if there is something to suffer after the soul is destroyed,, then who's to say the soul will not be reinstituted at some later time? Who's to say the poor lost destroyed soul will not be reincarnated as a poor worthless human like Dedicate, and given a new life like a man put out of prison? Who's to say?


--------------------------------------------

And that's what I call fundamentalism. That is what fundamentalism is called. You call it true Christianianity -- and only if it is Catholic or Lutheran, I take it.. But I'm not going to use the term "True Christianity", when someone holds those ideas. I'm going to say they have fundamentalist belives. That term works better and seems to fit. You don't like it,, but there may be a good reason for that.. (Because if I used the term "True Christianity" or just "Christianty" to define those believes then you would take humbridge if they were not Lutheran, and not all Christians hold those fundamental beliefs anyway.)


What I mean by the Eucharist- or Baptism -- as being Christian Fundamentals is -- receiving Eucharist or Baptism.. as a ceremony in a specific Church or congregation. That's what I mean. Eucharist and Baptism are Christian Fundamentals in many minds. The FUNDAMENTALISM comes into play when a person believes,, one has to recieve Baptism in such and such a way, in such and such church (Catholics, Mormons) as the only way to be saved, etc... So there are fundamentals (read the Bible) and fundamentalism (Read Only the Bible).

[uncia]

That's what I meant,, by asking you not to quote the Bible about an eternal Hell. There is no scripture support of eternal Hell. -- just Hell. No mention of eternity there.

I think there is mention of an eternal hell:

Isa 66:24 And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.

Luk 16:26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that [would come] from thence.

Rev 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet [are], and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
.
.
Rev 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.


That's what I call fundamentalism. That is what fundamentalism is called. You call it true Christianianity. But I'm not going to use the term "True Christianity", when someone holds those ideas. I kinda figured you would say that.

All I can say to people like that is "We will see, won't we?".
We will see? You mean you can't see it already? You must be blind.

[dedicate]

So now you are quoting scripture -- again and again. All I can say is it doesn't read the way you think it reads. No mention of eternity there. (read some of my ammendments to the last post). The second death is not Hell. "For ever and ever" is mistranslated but is part of the Second Death, not Hell anyway. in Rev. Hell is emptied and the souls are judged. So how could Hell be eternal then.. and then souls placed in a new Hell? Then why judge them a second time? etc.. etc.. I didn't want to get into this. I told you I'm familiar with each and every scripture you just posted. I understand your view. I don't see it that way.

[uncia]

So now you are quoting scripture -- again and again. All I can say is it doesn't read the way you think it reads. No mention of eternity there. (read some of my ammendments to the last post). The second death is not Hell. "For ever and ever" is mistranslated but is part of the Second Death, not Hell anyway. in Rev. Hell is emptied and the souls are judged. So how could Hell be eternal then.. and then souls placed in a new Hell? Then why judge them a second time? etc.. etc.. I didn't want to get into this. I told you I'm familiar with each and every scripture you just posted. I understand your view. I don't see it that way.
As I said in my last post, Hell has been mistranslated by the bible translators. As well as Gehenna, it is used to refer to Sheol (OT) and Hades (NT) which is where the spirits live waiting to be judged. Clearly after the judgment, there will be no place for Hades. The spirits in Hades (Hell in the KJV) are not judged, but awaiting judgment. There is only one judgment. Furthermore "for ever and ever" is correctly translated.

[dedicate]

Now I'm all confused. That's why I didn't want to get into this with you and is why I said, "please don't start quoting scripture to prove your point about eternal heaven and hell-- I'm not all that uneducated on the Bible contents, and I could quote the same texts and explain how that is not what is being said.." But now you have quoted maybe 7 scriptures! It would have been better for you to ask me for one of these quotes,-- one that you would/did bring up,, and ask my interpretation of it. Then you could respond. This way, it just seems I'm beating my head against a wall you have put up. -- you are saying "This is the way it is! Here!". No leeway for me to move.

And now you are confusing the issue. So the "Hell" of the Bible is not the eternal "Hell" we are talking about? Thats Sheol or Gehenna or Hades. And that's not eternal? The eternal Hell is the Second Death, now. And those in Gehenna or Sheol are not judged and do not suffer? or they do suffer in Sheol but are not yet "judged"? And where are the faithful then? They are not judged after death? but do receive better treatment than those who are also not judged but go to Gehenna? So you're saying people don't get judged after death but if they are unsaved go to the burning place of garbage to await judgement in which they will be found guilty and be punished for sure.. and that's not an after death judgement! --0 -- !!! Confusing, confused, obfucated. Nuts!

------------------------------------------------------------

Anyway,, here is the some more of what Blavatsky has to say on the subject.. she's not as easy to understand,, but makes more sense.

The fears of the Christians were but too well founded, and their pious zeal and prophetic insight was rewarded from the very first. In the demolition of the Serapeum, after the bloody riot between the Christian mob and the Pagan worshippers had ended with the interference of the emperor, a Latin cross, of a perfect Christian shape, was discovered hewn upon the granite slabs of the adytum. This was a lucky discovery, indeed; and the monks did not fail to claim that the cross hadbeen hallowed by the Pagans in a "spirit of prophecy." At least, Sozomen, with an air of triumph, records the fact.* But, archeology and symbolism, those tireless and implacable enemies of clerical false pretences, have found in the hieroglyphics of the legend running around the design, at least a partial interpretation of its meaning.

According to King and other numismatists and archaeologists, the cross was placed there as the symbol of eternal life. Such a Tau, or Egyptian cross, was used in the Bacchic and Eleusinian Mysteries. Symbol of the dual generative power, it was laid upon the breast of the initiate, after his "new birth" was accomplished, and the Mystae had returned from their baptism in the sea. It was a mystic sign that his spiritual birth had regenerated and united his astral soul with his divine spirit, and that he was ready to ascend in spirit to the blessed abodes of light and glory -- the Eleusinia. The Tau was a magic talisman at the same time as a religious emblem. It was adopted by the Christians through the Gnostics and kabalists, who used it largely, as their numerous gems testify, and who had the Tau (or handled cross) from the Egyptians, and the Latin cross from the Buddhist missionaries, who brought it from India, where it can be found until now, two or three centuries B.C. The Assyrians, Egyptians, ancient Americans, Hindus, and Romans had it in various, but very slight modifications of shape. Till very late in the mediaeval ages, it was considered a potent spell against epilepsy and demoniacal possession; and the "signet of the living God," brought down in St. John's vision by the angel ascending from the east to "seal the servants of our God in their foreheads," was but the same mystic Tau -- the Egyptian cross. In the painted glass of St. Dionysus (France), this angel is represented as stamping this sign on the forehead of the elect; the legend reads, SIGNVM TAY. In King's Gnostics, the author reminds us that "this mark is commonly borne by St. Anthony, an Egyptian recluse."** What the real meaning of the Tau was, is explained to us by the Christian St. John, the Egyptian Hermes, and the Hindu Brahmans. It is but too evident that, with the apostle, at least, it meant the "Ineffable Name," as he calls this "signet of the living God," a few chapters further on,*** the "Father's name written in their foreheads."

[uncia]

Now I'm all confused. That's why I didn't want to get into this with you and is why I said, "please don't start quoting scripture to prove your point about eternal heaven and hell-- I'm not all that uneducated on the Bible contents, and I could quote the same texts and explain how that is not what is being said.." But now you have quoted maybe 7 scriptures! It would have been better for you to ask me for one of these quotes,-- one that you would/did bring up,, and ask my interpretation of it. Then you could respond. This way, it just seems I'm beating my head against a wall you have put up. -- you are saying "This is the way it is! Here!". No leeway for me to move.

I'll agree there is a lot of nonsense written about these words. Part of the issue is that "hell" does not now mean what it may have meant in 1611, the date of the KJV. It now always refers to a place of eternal punishment, whereas the words Sheol and Hades did not originally mean that. What is undeniable is that Genhenna, and the second death and the lake of fire, and our modern word "hell" are synonyms for the place of eternal punishment.

Hades and Sheol do not represent such a place (better translated as "grave") although it is evident from what Jesus said that the wicked will still suffer in Hades/Sheol, even whilst awaiting judgment.

Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is [the book] of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

If Hades gives up its dead for judgment, it is clear that the dead in Hades are not yet judged, although the consciences of the wicked will condemn them to suffer prior to judgment, infers Jesus from his parable of the rich man and Lazarus. This article explains it more somewhat:
http://www.matthewmcgee.org/helwords.html

And now you are confusing the issue. So the "Hell" of the Bible is not the eternal "Hell" we are talking about? Thats Sheol or Gehenna or Hades. And that's not eternal? The eternal Hell is the Second Death, now. And those in Gehenna or Sheol are not judged and do not suffer? or they do suffer in Sheol but are not yet "judged"? And where are the faithful then? They are not judged after death? but do receive better treatment than those who are also not judged but go to Gehenna? So you're saying people don't get judged after death but if they are unsaved go to the burning place of garbage to await judgement in which they will be found guilty and be punished for sure.. and that's not an after death judgement! --0 -- !!! Confusing, confused, obfucated. Nuts!
The key to understanding the issue is to go back to the original greek and hebrew, and realize that there are three words, Sheol = Hades (means grave), and the NT concept of Gehenna, which Christ specifically articulated, as the consequence of the final judgment on the soul.

I'll address the rest of your post later.

[uncia]

Anyway,, here is the some more of what Blavatsky has to say on the subject.. she's not as easy to understand,, but makes more sense.

The fears of the Christians were but too well founded, and their pious zeal and prophetic insight was rewarded from the very first. In the demolition of the Serapeum, after the bloody riot between the Christian mob and the Pagan worshippers had ended with the interference of the emperor, a Latin cross, of a perfect Christian shape, was discovered hewn upon the granite slabs of the adytum. This was a lucky discovery, indeed; and the monks did not fail to claim that the cross hadbeen hallowed by the Pagans in a "spirit of prophecy." At least, Sozomen, with an air of triumph, records the fact.* But, archeology and symbolism, those tireless and implacable enemies of clerical false pretences, have found in the hieroglyphics of the legend running around the design, at least a partial interpretation of its meaning.

According to King and other numismatists and archaeologists, the cross was placed there as the symbol of eternal life. Such a Tau, or Egyptian cross, was used in the Bacchic and Eleusinian Mysteries. Symbol of the dual generative power, it was laid upon the breast of the initiate, after his "new birth" was accomplished, and the Mystae had returned from their baptism in the sea. It was a mystic sign that his spiritual birth had regenerated and united his astral soul with his divine spirit, and that he was ready to ascend in spirit to the blessed abodes of light and glory -- the Eleusinia. The Tau was a magic talisman at the same time as a religious emblem. It was adopted by the Christians through the Gnostics and kabalists, who used it largely, as their numerous gems testify, and who had the Tau (or handled cross) from the Egyptians, and the Latin cross from the Buddhist missionaries, who brought it from India, where it can be found until now, two or three centuries B.C. The Assyrians, Egyptians, ancient Americans, Hindus, and Romans had it in various, but very slight modifications of shape. Till very late in the mediaeval ages, it was considered a potent spell against epilepsy and demoniacal possession; and the "signet of the living God," brought down in St. John's vision by the angel ascending from the east to "seal the servants of our God in their foreheads," was but the same mystic Tau -- the Egyptian cross. In the painted glass of St. Dionysus (France), this angel is represented as stamping this sign on the forehead of the elect; the legend reads, SIGNVM TAY. In King's Gnostics, the author reminds us that "this mark is commonly borne by St. Anthony, an Egyptian recluse."** What the real meaning of the Tau was, is explained to us by the Christian St. John, the Egyptian Hermes, and the Hindu Brahmans. It is but too evident that, with the apostle, at least, it meant the "Ineffable Name," as he calls this "signet of the living God," a few chapters further on,*** the "Father's name written in their foreheads."
Even by the 2nd century AD, true religion had given way to superstition and ignorance. Hence the idolization of Mary and her supposed perpetual virginity, and other absurd fables. The cross was obviously regarded too with increasing superstition by the Catholic church, but it is notable that when Protestantism came along it abolished the visible manifestation of nearly all these superstitious relics of Roman Catholicism. The cross today is figuratively an emblem of suffering, as Christ was crucified on a cross. Doubtless it was used as some magic symbol in earlier pagan religions, but in Christianity, the elevation of it into a talisman was just another misguided endeavour by ignorant people.

[dedicate]

The Brahmatma, the chief of the Hindu initiates, had on his headgear two keys, symbol of the revealed mystery of life and death, placed cross-like; and, in some Buddhist pagodas of Tartary and Mongolia, the entrance of a chamber within the temple, generally containing the staircase which leads to the inner daghoba, and the porticos of some Prachida are ornamented with a cross formed of two fishes, and as found on some of the zodiacs of the Buddhists. We should not wonder at all at learning that the sacred device in the tombs in the Catacombs, at Rome, the "Vesica piscis," was derived from the said Buddhist zodiacal sign. How general must have been that geometrical figure in the world-symbols, may be inferred from the fact that there is a Masonic tradition that Solomon's temple was built on three foundations, forming the "triple Tau," or three crosses.

In its mystical sense, the Egyptian cross owes its origin, as an emblem, to the realization by the earliest philosophy of an androgynous dualism of every manifestation in nature, which proceeds from the abstract ideal of a likewise androgynous deity, while the Christian emblem is simply due to chance. Had the Mosaic law prevailed, Jesus should have been lapidated.*** The crucifix was an instrument of torture, and utterly common among Romans as it was unknown among Semitic nations. It was called the "Tree of Infamy." It is but later that it was adopted as a Christian symbol; but, during the first two decades, the apostles looked upon it with horror.**** It is certainly not the Christian Cross that John had in mind when speaking of the "signet of the living God," but the mystic Tau -- the Tetragrammaton, or mighty name, which, on the most ancient kabalistic talismans, was represented by the four Hebrew letters composing the Holy Word

The famous Lady Ellenborough, known among the Arabs of Damascus, and in the desert, after her last marriage, as Hanoum Medjouye, had a talisman in her possession, presented to her by a Druze from Mount Lebanon. It was recognized by a certain sign on its left corner, to belong to that class of gems which is known in Palestine as a "Messianic" amulet, of the second or third century, B. C. It is a green stone of a pentagonal form; at the bottom is engraved a fish; higher, Solomon's seal; and still higher, the four Chaldaic letters -- Jod, He, Vau, He, IAHO, which form the name of the Deity. These are arranged in quite an unusual way, running from below upward, in reversed order, and forming the Egyptian Tau. Around these there is a legend which, as the gem is not our property, we are not at liberty to give. The Tau, in its mystical sense, as well as the crux ansata, is the Tree of Life.

End Quote.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Isis Unveiled -- interesting title for a book. Isis is/was the Egyptian Godess guarding the entrance of the temple. Symbolically here, she guards the secrets to religion. As a feminine archetype, rather than a masculine/warlike guardian, we know that the secrets she guards must be unraveled, revealed, like a mystery, something unknown yet, if intelligently (intel -- gently) approached can be known. One can walk into the temple and not be harmed, but will one understand the meaning? -- Here we have Blavatsky's presentation of the clues to the mystery contained very much in the Egyptian, Babylonian, Hebrew and Christian Religion. So, one could think the theme of the book as being an unveiling of mysteries,,, The mystical nature and mysterious origins of our current culture, but most often neglected, rejected, unknown.

I have often found the Christian Religion to be steeped in mystery, -- the mystery of the cross, the mystery of virgin birth, the mystery of the Star of Bethlehelm, the mystery of resurrection, ascention, divine interceedance, grace, Sainthood, prophecy, etc.. Denial of these definitely mysterious matters and relegating it to dry interpretion and absolutism (know-it-all-ism, fundamentalism), leaves us cold, -- a cold fish of sorts.-- lifeless and dead.

Maybe Blavatsky is here giving us some of the clues needed to truely understand the nature of Christianity? Western Civilization? and lead the follower of the clues into an active participation in the mysteries.

-------------------

One should not assume that Blavatsky's writings are the philisophical renderings of a creative mind. Sure, it seems, much research and detail went into the writings and there is an originality to her presentation,,, but to say this is all -- only research and imagination, would be incorrect. These are the writings of an initiate, the truths contained here-in are from the upper most room.

More later.

[miracles]

The Brahmatma, the chief of the Hindu initiates, had on his headgear two keys, symbol of the revealed mystery of life and death, placed cross-like; and, in some Buddhist pagodas of Tartary and Mongolia, the entrance of a chamber within the temple, generally containing the staircase which leads to the inner daghoba, and the porticos of some Prachida are ornamented with a cross formed of two fishes, and as found on some of the zodiacs of the Buddhists. We should not wonder at all at learning that the sacred device in the tombs in the Catacombs, at Rome, the "Vesica piscis," was derived from the said Buddhist zodiacal sign. How general must have been that geometrical figure in the world-symbols, may be inferred from the fact that there is a Masonic tradition that Solomon's temple was built on three foundations, forming the "triple Tau," or three crosses.

In its mystical sense, the Egyptian cross owes its origin, as an emblem, to the realization by the earliest philosophy of an androgynous dualism of every manifestation in nature, which proceeds from the abstract ideal of a likewise androgynous deity, while the Christian emblem is simply due to chance. Had the Mosaic law prevailed, Jesus should have been lapidated.*** The crucifix was an instrument of torture, and utterly common among Romans as it was unknown among Semitic nations. It was called the "Tree of Infamy." It is but later that it was adopted as a Christian symbol; but, during the first two decades, the apostles looked upon it with horror.**** It is certainly not the Christian Cross that John had in mind when speaking of the "signet of the living God," but the mystic Tau -- the Tetragrammaton, or mighty name, which, on the most ancient kabalistic talismans, was represented by the four Hebrew letters composing the Holy Word

The famous Lady Ellenborough, known among the Arabs of Damascus, and in the desert, after her last marriage, as Hanoum Medjouye, had a talisman in her possession, presented to her by a Druze from Mount Lebanon. It was recognized by a certain sign on its left corner, to belong to that class of gems which is known in Palestine as a "Messianic" amulet, of the second or third century, B. C. It is a green stone of a pentagonal form; at the bottom is engraved a fish; higher, Solomon's seal; and still higher, the four Chaldaic letters -- Jod, He, Vau, He, IAHO, which form the name of the Deity. These are arranged in quite an unusual way, running from below upward, in reversed order, and forming the Egyptian Tau. Around these there is a legend which, as the gem is not our property, we are not at liberty to give. The Tau, in its mystical sense, as well as the crux ansata, is the Tree of Life.

End Quote.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Isis Unveiled -- interesting title for a book. Isis is/was the Egyptian Godess guarding the entrance of the temple. Symbolically here, she guards the secrets to religion. As a feminine archetype, rather than a masculine/warlike guardian, we know that the secrets she guards must be unraveled, revealed, like a mystery, something unknown yet, if intelligently (intel -- gently) approached can be known. One can walk into the temple and not be harmed, but will one understand the meaning? -- Here we have Blavatsky's presentation of the clues to the mystery contained very much in the Egyptian, Babylonian, Hebrew and Christian Religion. So, one could think the theme of the book as being an unveiling of mysteries,,, The mystical nature and mysterious origins of our current culture, but most often neglected, rejected, unknown.

I have often found the Christian Religion to be steeped in mystery, -- the mystery of the cross, the mystery of virgin birth, the mystery of the Star of Bethlehelm, the mystery of reserection, ascention, divine interceedance, grace, Sainthood, prophecy, etc.. Denial of these definitely mysterious matters and relegating it to dry interpretion and absolutism (know-it-all-ism, fundamentalism), leaves us cold, -- a cold fish of sorts.-- lifeless and dead.

Maybe Blavatsky is here giving us some of the clues needed to truely understand the nature of Christianity? Western Civilization? and lead the follower of the clues into an active participation in the mysteries.

-------------------

One should not assume that Blavatsky's writings are the philisophical renderings of a creative mind. Sure, it seems, much research and detail went into the writings and there is an originality to her presentation,,, but to say this is all -- research and imagination only, would be incorrect. These are the writings of an initiate, the truths contained here-in are from the upper most room.

More later.

Just wondering if you've read this information from the upper most room prior to posting it this time?

[dedicate]

No. I didn't read it before posting.

I do feel, though, Blavasky is making good points. The Christian Cross or Crucifix, is not altogether Christian, not independently Christian in origin and MEANING. It takes Christian tincture, of course, by laying the human form over the sacrificial symbol. -- a New Age symbol, renewing the Solomon Temple triple lay, the Egypt TAU and the Tree of Life found in the story of Eden. New meaning to ancient symbols.

The modern Christian may find this thought offensive because they want to believe their religion is the one and true source of religious knowledge which began AD1 there abouts. The Old Testament being seen as mere stepping stones (stories) to the Truth of Christianity. == prophecies already being fulfilled, laws being replaced, totally independent of what came before. The Christian feels only they have the begining and the end of all religious knowledge. -- this is true, but not until they remove the "only" from the above equation.

More later.

[miracles]

No. I didn't read it before posting.

I do feel, though, Blavasky is making good points. The Christian Cross or Crucifix, is not altogether Christian, not independently Christian in origin and MEANING. It takes Christian tincture, of course, by laying the human form over the sacrificial symbol. -- a New Age symbol, renewing the Solomon Temple triple lay and the Egypt TAU. New meaning to ancient symbols.

The modern Christian may find this thought offensive because they want to believe their religion is the one and true source of religious knowledge which began AD1 there abouts. The Old Testament being seen as mere stepping stones (stories) to the Truth of Christianity. == prophecies already being fulfilled, laws being replaced, totally independent of what came before. The Christian feels only they have the begining and the end of all religious knowledge. -- this is true, but not until they remove the "only they" from the above equation.

More later.

Im not offended because I'm not reading it, I'm just wondering why you are posting stuff you havent even read? I find it rather bazar, also commenting on videos you haven't watched etc, whats with that. Lol?

[dedicate]

It is best to speak in riddles when one is talking to some people,-- because, they don't get it.

[uncia]

These are the writings of an initiate, the truths contained here-in are from the upper most room.

More later.
There is a lot of this secrecy in Gnosticism. That's the whole point of it. If you know something I don't, that means you are one up on me. Christianity is the antithesis of this nonsense. All its secrets are revealed in the bible. Problem is that most people don't/won't understand it, just because of their determination to sin. So instead they seek esoteric knowledge from the ancient philosophers, whereas all that is required is to turn to God and hear him.


hn 12:40 He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with [their] eyes, nor understand with [their] heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.

[1977]

There is a lot of this secrecy in Gnosticism. That's the whole point of it. If you know something I don't, that means you are one up on me.
The Gnostics have never struck me as particularly secret, considering that the Church Fathers wrote so extensively on their doctrines. Even Celsus complains that there was a prostelyte on every street corner.

Blavatsky, on the other hand, is another kettle of fish.
Christianity is the antithesis of this nonsense. All its secrets are revealed in the bible. Problem is that most people don't/won't understand it, just because of their determination to sin. So instead they seek esoteric knowledge from the ancient philosophers, whereas all that is required is to turn to God and hear him."Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand."

[uncia]

The Gnostics have never struck me as particularly secret, considering that the Church Fathers wrote so extensively on their doctrines. Even Celsus complains that there was a prostelyte on every street corner.

I am using the term "Gnostic" loosely. You can apply it also to Freemasons, and many other sects - also Roman Catholicism, which forbade the translation of the bible because it wanted to retain the so-called knowledge of God in the hierarchy - but all it knew was human law substituting for such knowledge.

Blavasky has been widely condemned as a plagiarizer and a charlatan. Doubtless she fiound this esoteric knowledge of the ancients interesting, but it does not have a lot to do with the faith as taught by Christ. More a kind of historical study along the lines of Gibbon's Decline and Fall - except that was an original work.

[uncia]

The modern Christian may find this thought offensive because they want to believe their religion is the one and true source of religious knowledge which began AD1 there abouts.
No. If you have ever read the biblical book of Ecclesiastes, you will know it is there said that there is "nothing new under the sun". Well I am sure that applies to symbols. By AD1, it was almost guaranteed that someone somewhere else would have used the cross for some purpose. I mean, you can't stop people using symbols, and the cross is a fairly elementary one. Think of the swastika too (3000 years old).

[dedicate]

You love to qoute the Bible,, over and over again, and then accuse others of being unoriginal. I find Bible quoting quiet tedious, and mostly an overused method of making a point, thus dull. Accept the fact that I know the Bible, maybe as well as you do.-- and go from that.

I'm trying to show that Christianity is not the sole source of religious instructions/salvation/truth. Before Christanity and outside Christianity there are others. I think this is the main Thesis of Theosophy.

And i'm not saying Christanity "borrowed" from other systems and cultures. Christianity is unique in many ways. What I am saying is Christianity is part of an ancient tradition that predates Jesus incarnation. Jesus revitalized the Hebrew tradition already in place and extending back into antiquity. Thus, the Cross seen at the Temple of Solomon or in Eden as the Tree of Life,, is not the same cross we have today,, but they are related, same tradition, same root source, same basic meanings,, but with a newness and freshness,, and evolutionary transfiguration never before seen. Ancient symbols, new knowledge.

And because Theosophy is not a religion we are investigating also the cultural roots of society. Hopefully, to show that Culture is dependent on Religion in many many ways. I believe it is impossible to have culture without religion. -- even if there is no religion to speak of or point to (American Indian for example).

More later.

[miracles]

You love to qoute the Bible,, over and over again, and then accuse others of being unoriginal. I find Bible quoting quiet tedious, and mostly an overused method of making a point, thus dull. Accept the fact that I know the Bible, maybe as well as you do.-- and go from that.

I'm trying to show that Chrisitianity is not the sole source of religious instructions/salvation/truth. Before Chrisitanity and outside Christianity there are others. I think this is the main Thesis of Theosophy.

And i'm not saying Christitanity "borrowed" from other systems and cultures. Christianity is unique in many ways. What I am saying is Christianity is part of an ancient tradition that predates Jesus incarnation. Jesus revitalized the Hebrew tradition already in place and extending back into antiquity. Thus, the Cross seen at the Temple of Solomon or in Eden as the Tree of Life,, is not the same cross we have today,, but they are related, same tradition, same root source, same basic meanings,, but with a newness and freshness,, and evolutionary transfiguration never before seen.

And because Theosophy is not a religion we are investigating also the cultural roots of society. Hopefully, to show that Culture is dependent on Religion in many many ways. I don't believe it is possible to have culture without religion. -- even if there is no religion to speak of or point to (American Indian for example).

More later.


You dont know the bible dedicate, you have proven that. And all this nonsense about speaking in riddles. Well, you're only fooling yourself.

[miracles]

It is best to speak in riddles when one is talking to some people,-- because, they don't get it.

Why dont you form a secret handshake club of your own dedicate?

[dedicate]

If there were many more like you guys around, I might have to go underground. What is the name we give to people who see beliefs other than their own as "ignorant", "non-sense", and "heretical"? -- people who assign punishment of those beliefs to the afterlife, because culture dicatates thay have to!!!-- but, if times were different, they would set the fire and hold the coats? What do we call people like that!

You should appreciate at least to some degree, what I am doing here. There are three threads on this board currently, claiming Christianity is a fake creation and reflects nothing more than ancient superstitions found in Sun Worship, Horus Worship and even Cannibalism! Thus they are saying -- Jesus never existed, or at least was not an Avatara (Guiding Light of the World). I'm saying no such thing, and neither is Blavasky.

I'm pointing out what they are not,, and which they have never pointed out, even though the same basic threads of history are followed. They could have come to the same points I'm making here, but choose the Anti-Religious view, a twisting if there ever was one.

[miracles]

If there were many more like you guys around, I might have to go underground. What is the name we give to people who see beliefs other than their own as "ignorant", "non-sense", and "heretical"? -- people who assign punishment of those beliefs to the afterlife, because culture dicatates thay have to!!!-- but, if times were different, they would set the fire and hold the coats? What do we call people like that!

You should appreciate at least to some degree, what I am doing here. There are three threads on this board currently, claiming Christianity is a fake creation and reflects nothing more than ancient superstitions found in Sun Worship, Horus Worship and even Cannibalism! Thus they are saying -- Jesus never existed, or at least was not an Avatara (Guiding Light of the World). I'm saying no such thing, and neither is Blavasky.

I'm pointing out what they are not,, and which they have never pointed out, even though the same basic threads of history are followed. They could have come to the same points I'm making here, but choose the Anti-Religious view, a twisting if there ever was one.

If the general consenus on this website is a cross section of society as to how they feel towards "people like us" I would suggest that it is us who are going to have to go underground very soon.

Evidently Satan believes in Christ, just because someone states belief that something is or existed doesnt mean bo didley. Starvation and suffering exists in the world and everyone knows about it and believes it. Whether that means they do anything about it is another story.

[uncia]

I'm trying to show that Christianity is not the sole source of religious instructions/salvation/truth. Before Christanity and outside Christianity there are others.

You are stating the obvious. It does not go unobserved that before the New Testament, there is an Old Testament, which records the history of true religion since the world began. Largely that was bound up in the Jews, but obviously there were other people too who worshipped God is a reasonable way. Consider the High Priest of Jerusalem, Melchizedek to whom Abraham offered the fruit of the spoils of war. Christianity is what in some people's terminology is referred to as a "dispensation", the dispensation of grace, instead of law. The law was shown to have failed, to be incapable of producing godliness, in part because it was hijacked by the political rulers for their own ends, much like today.



And i'm not saying Christanity "borrowed" from other systems and cultures. Christianity is unique in many ways. What I am saying is Christianity is part of an ancient tradition that predates Jesus incarnation. Jesus revitalized the Hebrew tradition already in place and extending back into antiquity. Thus, the Cross seen at the Temple of Solomon or in Eden as the Tree of Life,, is not the same cross we have today,, but they are related, same tradition, same root source, same basic meanings,, but with a newness and freshness,, and evolutionary transfiguration never before seen. Ancient symbols, new knowledge.

Christianity is unque because it ushered in the age of faith, based upon forgiveness of sins by belief in Christ as the son of God. No other religion comes anywhere close to offering such a gift to mankind. Every other religious system is beholden to legalism to try to obtain justification in front of God, including Islam and Judaism. The symbols of Christianity are clearly not original. The message is totally original. To be preoccupied with whether the cross was first used by Christianity or by a more ancient system is completely irrelevant. In any case, nearly all of Christian symbolism is to be found in the Old Testament. Moses set a snake upon the pole for people to look to to live:
Num 21:9 And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.
This is symbolic of the way in which Christ would be crucified upon the cross, and that people would look to him for life. Almost the whole of the book of Revelations is premised upon Old Testament symbolism. The whole point of Christianity is that it is not new, but an evolution, or rather a fulfillment, of all what has gone before.

[miracles]

You are stating the obvious. It does not go unobserved that before the New Testament, there is an Old Testament, which records the history of true religion since the world began. Largely that was bound up in the Jews, but obviously there were other people too who worshipped God is a reasonable way. Consider the High Priest of Jerusalem, Melchizedek to whom Abraham offered the fruit of the spoils of war. Christianity is what in some people's terminology is referred to as a "dispensation", the dispensation of grace, instead of law. The law was shown to have failed, to be incapable of producing godliness, in part because it was hijacked by the political rulers for their own ends, much like today.



Christianity is unque because it ushered in the age of faith, based upon forgiveness of sins by belief in Christ as the son of God. No other religion comes anywhere close to offering such a gift to mankind. Every other religious system is beholden to legalism to try to obtain justification in front of God, including Islam and Judaism. The symbols of Christianity are clearly not original. The message is totally original. To be preoccupied with whether the cross was first used by Christianity or by a more ancient system is completely irrelevant. In any case, nearly all of Christian symbolism is to be found in the Old Testament. Moses set a snake upon the pole for people to look to to live:

This is symbolic of the way in which Christ would be crucified upon the cross, and that people would look to him for life. Almost the whole of the book of Revelations is premised upon Old Testament symbolism. The whole point of Christianity is that it is not new, but an evolution, or rather a fulfillment, of all what has gone before.

There is nothing wrong with the law of God and it will never fail or pass away, it is perfect. Not only that it has completed its purpose of shining the light on sin and providing the directions to the cross and the saviour.

[uncia]

There is nothing wrong with the law of God and it will never fail or pass away, it is perfect. Not only that it has completed its purpose of shining the light on sin and providing the directions to the cross and the saviour.
The law was perfect but lacked the necessary power to counter the flesh:
Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

[miracles]

The law was perfect but lacked the necessary power to counter the flesh:

The law was shown to have failed, to be incapable of producing godliness

This pertains to the law exposing sin in the flesh and the flesh being weak, not the law being weak. Romans is all about showing the glory and power of Christ to concure the flesh by walking in the spirit. Which as I said is the whole purpose of the perfect law. It is us that is weak and imperfect an unable to fullfill the law. Not the law. Christ fullfilled the perfect law of God perfectly.


Pro 6:23
For the commandment is a lamp; and the law is light; and reproofs of instruction are the way of life:

The law shines the light on sin, so we can see it and deal with it. The law is a blessing.

The law was shown to have failed, to be incapable of producing godliness So this statement is not true because the law succeeds in revealing weakness in the flesh, not fails. Churches preach this garbage, but when I showed a minister the truth he did agree with me on this point.

[banjoreality]

Blavatsky is the corner stone for the evil cabal's darkest inspirations, theosophists (Ghandi included) are illuminati pawn.
Good luck to you dedicate, you need it, you are apparently lost.
The light is in each and every soul, even (especially) the Papus from Guinea have a closer link to eternal knowledge than you and the likes of your dear Madame will have in a million light years, darkness separates us and racism is the deepest form of spiritual degradation, I pity you for you are the cancer believing itself to be the cure.

[dedicate]

"If the general consenus on this website is a cross section of society as to how they feel towards "people like us" I would suggest that it is us who are going to have to go underground very soon." --

So, I guess that makes it right to offend those who don't hold "your" religious belief. The tables have turned since the days of the inquisition, but never-the-less, if Religio/Fascists had their's, history would repeat, and my head would be on the block.

"Satan believes in Christ". Satan may believe in Christ, but he would never promote Christ. How arrogant of you to say only your beliefs reflect the true Christ knowledge and mine are of Satan!

Uncia said,, "You are stating the obvious. It does not go unobserved that before the New Testament, there is an Old Testament, which records the history of true religion since the world began." -- not really "stating the obvious." It's a fine point, that maybe you missed, but a lot of people do not see Christianity as related to Judaism what-so-ever. Read the board a little more, investigate. I would say even your beliefs don't recognize the unity and truth of it.

Then the rest.. Riligio Fascism. Which is really what Fundamentalism is about.--- Authority and Rule,. Not allowing others the freedom to have a belief other than their own and spewing any kind of assault onto someone who would dare express it. Not religion at all..

[uncia]

.... the law succeeds in revealing weakness in the flesh, not fails. Churches preach this garbage, but when I showed a minister the truth he did agree with me on this point.
Depends on what your criteria of success is. The law succeeds in exposing sin, but fails in providing a remedy. No point in splittings hairs - this is the true picture.

[size_of_light]

Madam Blavatsky -- Queen of the Damned

Life's too short.

My take on her is that some of what she's written seems to be essentially accurate based on other sources I've come across but most of the details of her shit are completely without supporting evidence and the bitch has the look in her eyes of a particularly nasty Dominatrix when you realise that she's not just playing the role of an evil bitch but actually is an evil bitch, enjoying her work as she warps and mind-fucks you into delusions of the extreme.

Don't like her, don't trust her, not interested.

[uncia]

So, I guess that makes it right to offend those who don't hold "your" religious belief.

Basically Christians have the right to be as offensive as they want to pagans. The apostle so offended the rulers, and elders, and scribes, that they were commanded not to preach. However they were ignored (Acts 4).. Stephen the first martyr said this:


Act 7:51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers [did], so [do] ye.

Act 7:52 Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers:

Act 7:53 Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept [it].

----------------------

Act 7:54 When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with [their] teeth.


.... a lot of people do not see Christianity as related to Judaism what-so-ever. Read the board a little more, investigate. I would say even your beliefs don't recognize the unity and truth of it.

Modern day Judaism is a conscious rejection of Christ and a determination to ignore Christ. However the law and the prophets, which are part of the OT, all point to CHrist. Read Isaiah 53 and tell me that it does not accurately predict Christ.


Riligio Fascism. Which is really what Fundamentalism is about.--- Authority and Rule,. Not allowing others the freedom to have a belief other than their own and spewing any kind of assault onto someone who would dare express it. Not religion at all..
Truth is not a democracy. Nor is true religion.

[shaivite]

I was a member of the TS for several years and even spent some time at their HQ in Adyar, Chennai, in southern India. This was over a decade ago. Since I had went on my own during a quiet time of year I was given something of a special tour and shown some of the things are that generally kept out of public view. I also got to spend time with some of those in the senior positions of the society. I'm quite familiar with many of the writings of the main contributors to TS thought. Some of their perspective, including some of what Blavatsky has said, I can agree with, but much of it I don't agree with. Yet from reading this thread it is quite clear that most folk aren't really familiar with, or don't really grasp, much of the Blavatsky and TS message. This is no surprise though. Repeatedly I see on this and other forums those ranting and condemning subject matters such as this one, yet their words and attitude illustrates that they don't really have a sound understanding of the matter. For what it is worth my advice is don't waste your time engaging in futile ignorant debate with them. Do your own studying and investigation. Read, contemplate, meet the people, etc. and then draw your own conclusions.

[uncia]

I was a member of the TS for several years and even spent some time at their HQ in Adyar, Chennai, in southern India. This was over a decade ago. Since I had went on my own during a quiet time of year I was given something of a special tour and shown some of the things are that generally kept out of public view. I also got to spend time with some of those in the senior positions of the society. I'm quite familiar with many of the writings of the main contributors to TS thought. Some of their perspective, including some of what Blavatsky has said, I can agree with, but much of it I don't agree with. Yet from reading this thread it is quite clear that most folk aren't really familiar with, or don't really grasp, much of the Blavatsky and TS message. This is no surprise though. Repeatedly I see on this and other forums those ranting and condemning subject matters such as this one, yet their words and attitude illustrates that they don't really have a sound understanding of the matter. For what it is worth my advice is don't waste your time engaging in futile ignorant debate with them. Do your own studying and investigation. Read, contemplate, meet the people, etc. and then draw your own conclusions.
The whole problem with Theosophy is that its proponents don't really want to be understood. They are interested in using it to exalt their reputations in their own eyes. That is why their works are so turgid. What it is really about, at its most basic, seems to be debunking true religion and true faith.

[shaivite]

The whole problem with Theosophy is that its proponents don't really want to be understood. They are interested in using it to exalt their reputations in their own eyes. That is why their works are so turgid. What it is really about, at its most basic, seems to be debunking true religion and true faith.

Dear sir, I've read many of your posts the last couple of days and it is quite clear that you have no interest in genuine fruitful discussion. Instead your words promote disruptive arguments, agitation and worthless debate. Your post in response to my own is such an example of this. EVERYTHING you say in the above quote is either false (due to your lack of understanding and restricted perception of the matter) or an intentional lie and attempt to further stir things up. I seriously doubt you have any genuine heart felt interest in deepening your knowledge and wisdom of true religion or true faith.

[uncia]

Dear sir, I've read many of your posts the last couple of days and it is quite clear that you have no interest in genuine fruitful discussion. Instead your words promote disruptive arguments, agitation and worthless debate. Your post in response to my own is such an example of this. EVERYTHING you say in the above quote is either false (due to your lack of understanding and restricted perception of the matter) or an intentional lie and attempt to further stir things up. I seriously doubt you have any genuine heart felt interest in deepening your knowledge and wisdom of true religion or true faith.
Well at least I learnt the website address of your HQ. From it I read this:

Theosophy is a contemporary expression of the timeless Wisdom of humanity, a Wisdom originally derived from teachers greater than us in knowledge and insight.

However from the bible I read this:
1Cr 1:20 Where [is] the wise? where [is] the scribe? where [is] the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
See the fact of the matter, that TS and Christianity really do have nothing in common, so trying to criticize me for saying so, is rather pointless, because by their own confessions the two systems oppose each other.

[shaivite]

Well at least I learnt the website address of your HQ.


It is not my HQ. As I said I was a member. This was a decade ago.


See the fact of the matter, that TS and Christianity really do have nothing in common,


If that is your opinion then that is fine, no problem. Others would somewhat disagree and see how there are shared aspects, which is also fine.


so trying to criticize me for saying so,


This was not what I said. I said your words promote worthless debate, disruptive arguments, and agitation. This point is not restricted to this thread. It is possible to discuss any of these matters in a positive, friendly and uplifting fashion. I would say you have not did this. I would even go as far to say you are possibly quite intentionally trying to be disruptive. Are you looking to uplift people or to tear them down? It is not the topic of discussion, but how you have chosen to express these points to others. To me this speaks volumes. A case of not so much what you say, but how you say it.


is rather pointless, because by their own confessions the two systems oppose each other.

Theosophy and theosophists (generally speaking) don't oppose Christianity. I think my experience qualifies me to make this statement with a degree of accuracy. Much of Christianity and many Christians might oppose Theosophy and practically any other non-Christian belief/spiritual system. That is their choice and reflects a great deal about their understanding and "spiritual" perspective.

Good luck to you Uncia. :)

[uncia]

I said your words promote worthless debate, disruptive arguments, and agitation. This point is not restricted to this thread. It is possible to discuss any of these matters in a positive, friendly and uplifting fashion. I would say you have not did this. I would even go as far to say you are possibly quite intentionally trying to be disruptive. Are you looking to uplift people or to tear them down? It is not the topic of discussion, but how you have chosen to express these points to others. To me this speaks volumes. A case of not so much what you say, but how you say it.

I think your statements / sentiments are completely out of order. It is you who are being disruptive. I was having some reasonable discussions until you interjected.


Theosophy and theosophists (generally speaking) don't oppose Christianity. I think my experience qualifies me to make this statement with a degree of accuracy. Much of Christianity and many Christians might oppose Theosophy and practically any other non-Christian belief/spiritual system. That is their choice and reflects a great deal about their understanding and "spiritual" perspective.

The way I see it is that most people want to be "friends" with Christ and Christianity, even Muslims, but it is the duty of Christians not to be friends where being "friends" leads to a compromise of principles. What principles Theosophy has, I have no idea, but they do not seem to be biblical:

Here (http://www.4ppl.com/blog/entry/_Repost_Madonna_Worships_Satan_Go_Figure_Another_W ealthy_God_hating_Self_righteous_Arrogant_Celebrit ) I read some more about Blavatsky

H.P. Blavatsky is the founder of Theosophy. This is the view that Lucifer is truly an angel of light and he is the one who deserves our worship and allegiance. Blavatsky came from an occult family, and was already a Medium when she was a teenager. She sought out evil and the company of demonic spirits all of her life. She wrote many books about the occult.

She believed that the Jews - through books like the Kabbalah - had stolen books of black magic that had previously come from the Chaldeans. She denied that Jesus was the Christ.

She also denied that salvation could come through Jesus Christ. She remained extremely hostile to Jehovah/Yahweh - the God of the Jews.

A.E. Waite is an occult author. He played a large role in helping many occult authors in the early 1900s. He was involved in Many occult societies including the Golden Dawn. All of these authors are devoted to the Kabbalah and other forms of the Occult.

These authors deliberately sought to be involved with demonic spirits.

[shaivite]

I think your statements / sentiments are completely out of order. It is you who are being disruptive. I was having some reasonable discussions until you interjected.


Honest truth, I'm not looking to disrupt matters, far far from it. Nor am I looking to offend you or anyone. If I am wrong in what I have said then I can admit that. You probably know your own heart and intent better than I. If I am wrong on about your intent and your wish to tear down others and/or their belief systems, rather than uplift others spiritually, then so be it, I'm wrong and my apology to you sincerely goes with it.


The way I see it is that most people want to be "friends" with Christ and Christianity, even Muslims, but it is the duty of Christians not to be friends where being "friends" leads to a compromise of principles.


Yes, many people do want to be friends with Christ and Christianity, I myself have a good friend in the US who is in the process of becoming a priest. However much of Christ and Christianity make it difficult. For example, I read some of your comments with regards to Muslims on another thread. Not exactly welcoming and peace promoting. Then there was this statement you made in this thread "Basically Christians have the right to be as offensive as they want to pagans." Well, I practice a form of Tantric Shaivism and have written for Pagan publications, so I guess that would make me a Pagan. So do you have the right to be as offensive as you wish to me? Would Christ be insulting and offensive to me? My friend, and to everyone else, I retorically ask - is this wisdom?


What principles Theosophy has, I have no idea, but they do not seem to be biblical:


Perhaps it would be worth looking into the principles of Theosophy. While you might not agree with all of it, maybe you might find that there is something of value within them.


Here (http://www.4ppl.com/blog/entry/_Repost_Madonna_Worships_Satan_Go_Figure_Another_W ealthy_God_hating_Self_righteous_Arrogant_Celebrit ) I read some more about Blavatsky

I had a look at the web page. I found it typically simplistic and ignorant. Quite common of a Christian perspective on Theosophy and related matters that is spread across the web. I have to say if this is what you are basing your opinion of Theosophy on then this is a pretty weak understanding. In response to another poster you said yourself earlier in this thread "I knew nothing of Blavatsky or Theosophy until I read your posts. Now I understand quite a lot." I would call that into question. It would seem then that you have a fairly limited understanding of Theosophy. Nothing wrong as such in that, but to make judgements about a complex system of thought without taking the time to understand it seems like folly.

And hopefully I can make this my last point, as I'm not really interested in perpetuating such discussions that don't really go anywhere. But please let me reiterate an earlier point - I don't agree with all of Theosophy, some of it yes, and more of it no. So let it be understood that I'm not trying to defend something which I consider my belief system. If people want to poke holes in it, criticize it and pull it apart, that is fine. Though the intelligent course of action would seem to be if they had a firm philosophical and technical grasp of the subject before doing so, and if they did so in a manner rich in the intent to explore and ultimately spiritually uplift.

Best wishes.

[miracles]

"If the general consenus on this website is a cross section of society as to how they feel towards "people like us" I would suggest that it is us who are going to have to go underground very soon." --

So, I guess that makes it right to offend those who don't hold "your" religious belief. The tables have turned since the days of the inquisition, but never-the-less, if Religio/Fascists had their's, history would repeat, and my head would be on the block.

"Satan believes in Christ". Satan may believe in Christ, but he would never promote Christ. How arrogant of you to say only your beliefs reflect the true Christ knowledge and mine are of Satan!

Uncia said,, "You are stating the obvious. It does not go unobserved that before the New Testament, there is an Old Testament, which records the history of true religion since the world began." -- not really "stating the obvious." It's a fine point, that maybe you missed, but a lot of people do not see Christianity as related to Judaism what-so-ever. Read the board a little more, investigate. I would say even your beliefs don't recognize the unity and truth of it.

Then the rest.. Riligio Fascism. Which is really what Fundamentalism is about.--- Authority and Rule,. Not allowing others the freedom to have a belief other than their own and spewing any kind of assault onto someone who would dare express it. Not religion at all..

The inquisition was not conducted by followers of the Way it was conducted by those who oppose it, people like yourself. You will never find your head on a block for what you believe NEVER. It's extremely arrogant of you to compare yourself to the millions who where martyred for not rejecting a simple faith in the beautiful truth.

I didnt say your beliefs are of Satan, you a havn't even read the bollocks your posting dedicate so how do I even know it's what you believe? Followers of the the Way are not facists, unless of course like Lucifer Horus you believe Christ was a war mongering militant facist. LOL.

[uncia]

Perhaps it would be worth looking into the principles of Theosophy. While you might not agree with all of it, maybe you might find that there is something of value within them.

Back on topic....yes, the principles of Theosophy are essentially charlatanism....

Toward the end of her life, she wrote a confession to one of her detractors, a Russian writer named Solyvov, and admitted she had lied about many things, including the existence of the Mahatmas, having hundreds of lovers (she was actually a virgin until they day she died), that she faked communications with spirits and that some of the phenomena her followers saw could be attributed to hallucination! Even then, she wrote the letter in the most dramatic manner possible, making herself sound like a persecuted martyr rather than a fraud. Though Blavatsky was proven a fraud in her lifetime and even finally admitted it, her Theosophical Society continues on....


..and anti-semitism and anti-christianity, being the seminal precursor of Nazi ideology. She also promoted the Swastika.

Here (http://usminc.org/blavatsky.html) is a great piece on Blatvatsky
Her saddest and most horrifying accomplishment was being the spiritual impetus for the Nazi regime, decades after her death. As you can guess by her doctrines about Aryans and Jews previously mentioned, many German occultists and racists embraced Blavatsky’s idea of being descended from Aryan god-men and her anti-Semeticism. Blatvatsky’s favorite occult symbol was the swastika, which she claimed was the symbol of the Aryan race and the most powerful of all occult symbols. This symbol was adopted by the Nazis. Heinrich Himmler was a devout believer in Blavatsky’s teachings, and even went on an expedition to Asia as Germany was losing WWII to try and find the (non-existing) link to the Tibetans and the Aryans.


I had a look at the web page. I found it typically simplistic and ignorant. Quite common of a Christian perspective on Theosophy and related matters that is spread across the web. I have to say if this is what you are basing your opinion of Theosophy on then this is a pretty weak understanding. In response to another poster you said yourself earlier in this thread "I knew nothing of Blavatsky or Theosophy until I read your posts. Now I understand quite a lot." I would call that into question. It would seem then that you have a fairly limited understanding of Theosophy. Nothing wrong as such in that, but to make judgements about a complex system of thought without taking the time to understand it seems like folly.

I am trying to understand it, and I am getting the picture that its only purpose is to deceive and lead people away from Christ, much like Kaballism, with which it is closely linked today.


And hopefully I can make this my last point, as I'm not really interested in perpetuating such discussions that don't really go anywhere. But please let me reiterate an earlier point - I don't agree with all of Theosophy, some of it yes, and more of it no. So let it be understood that I'm not trying to defend something which I consider my belief system. If people want to poke holes in it, criticize it and pull it apart, that is fine. Though the intelligent course of action would seem to be if they had a firm philosophical and technical grasp of the subject before doing so, and if they did so in a manner rich in the intent to explore and ultimately spiritually uplift.

Best wishes.
Yes, but as with the higher orders of free masonary, the masters of theosophy are keen to keep their secrets to themselves, wrapped up in mysticism. So you can't blame me for not understanding it.

[miracles]

I was a member of the TS for several years and even spent some time at their HQ in Adyar, Chennai, in southern India. This was over a decade ago. Since I had went on my own during a quiet time of year I was given something of a special tour and shown some of the things are that generally kept out of public view. I also got to spend time with some of those in the senior positions of the society. I'm quite familiar with many of the writings of the main contributors to TS thought. Some of their perspective, including some of what Blavatsky has said, I can agree with, but much of it I don't agree with. Yet from reading this thread it is quite clear that most folk aren't really familiar with, or don't really grasp, much of the Blavatsky and TS message. This is no surprise though. Repeatedly I see on this and other forums those ranting and condemning subject matters such as this one, yet their words and attitude illustrates that they don't really have a sound understanding of the matter. For what it is worth my advice is don't waste your time engaging in futile ignorant debate with them. Do your own studying and investigation. Read, contemplate, meet the people, etc. and then draw your own conclusions.


This place wouldnt exist without the premise of futile ignorant debate. :D

[shaivite]

Dear Uncia,

Thank you for your response, I enjoyed it.


She also promoted the Swastika.


Apart from the Nazi's perverting the swastika I see nothing wrong with this symbol. I have two or three of them in pictures in my home, one of which is right next to my front door and above the swastika I have an eight inch San Damiano Cross, while above that I have a large yantra. I also have at least one swastika on my puja altar. I see it in a Hindu context, and beautiful it is too!


I am trying to understand it, and I am getting the picture that its only purpose is to deceive and lead people away from Christ, much like Kaballism, with which it is closely linked today.


Don't you see organisations like the TS don't have to lead people away from Christ and Christianity, as Christians and Christianity does that itself! It has been doing it for a long time. I can tell you that while many folk at the TS found much spiritual truth in the teachings of Christ they turned away from Christianity to groups like the TS because of the attitude and behaviour of many Christians. They found them sickening and disgusting. They were searching for spirituality but what they found in Christians and churches revolted them. The kind of Christian often found in forums such as this turns people away by the droves. Quite ironic really. Don't blame the TS or other such groups, don't think it is some dark conspiracy to steal souls away from Christianity. The fact is Christianity failed many of these people. It let them down. The found it hollow, ignornant, judgemental, wanting in many ways, and lacking in love, kindness, and compassion. Christianity and Christians should take the splinter out their own eye first and then question if the actions of many Christians inspire and attract people to join them, or if their actions drives others away to seek spirituality elsewhere. Many people I met at the TS were searching for spiritual truth and I think many would have gladly accepted some form of Christianity if it wasn't for the foul attitude and behaviour of many "Christians". As Gandhi said "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."



Yes, but as with the higher orders of free masonary, the masters of theosophy are keen to keep their secrets to themselves, wrapped up in mysticism. So you can't blame me for not understanding it.

While certainly a fair bit is wrapped in esoteric language, there isn't a lot of it in wrapped in mysticism. Yet practically every belief system has its fair share of mysticism that is difficult to understand if one isn't spiritually mature enough and is lacking the personal insight to grasp it. I certainly wouldn't say the TS tries to keep many secrets, quite the opposite really. If anything people at all levels of the TS were more than happy to share their knowledge. They actually couldn't attract enough people, as the TS is a dwindling organisation these days and has been since at least the 1960's. It is but a minor fragment of what it was back at its peak.

Since it appears I'm so far the only one here with experience of the TS I take it I'm so far the only one who can speak from first hand experience of them, their teachings and the people involved. Lucky me? Yet it strikes me that nobody has asked about that, but instead draw their conclusions from one sided, heavily opinionated sources. You have to laugh! :D

[dedicate]

Yes. Good. There is a lot of wisdom in what you are saying Shaivite. I see it, but the Fundamentalist does not respond to Wisdom. Odd,, they seem only to find affinity with the HARD LINE and DEAD LETTER. In a previous thread, I recommend therapy, not because they are crazy, but because they are stubborn and cold. -- totally antithetical to Relgion. Problem is they don't see it, and thus wont seek help.

For example -- Miracles has been going on about me not reading and viewing but still making comments,, then he says he is not reading this thread, but calls the information "bullocks". I could ask him the same thing he is asking me,- How can you say, "bullocks" and not read any of it? so I don't understand him going on about it. Odd. I'm sure he has a reason for doing so -- at least in his mind -- and I'm sure he believes his reason for doing the same thing he complaines of me is a better reason than mine, even though I've never given a reason for it..

Anyway.. good points.

Uncia -- you are undeniably misinformed or intentionally causing strife among the Religious. Hard to say what it is. I mean, you haven't learned that going to one website for information about any religious thought is going to get you biased information? I'm sure we could find tons of information on 1,000's of websites railing on just about anyone and anything; full of lies and slants and dis-info. So, believing you have proved something by pulling up one of these articles, really doesn't prove much around here. I have tried to ignore that sort of stuff in the past. I tend to rely on a broad range of informative sites to garner my opinons, in order to discover what might be fiction and what might be valid.

Oh.. the swasticka. That symbol. -- how they love to bring that one to the fore. "If the Nazi's used it, it must be evil!".. right? Well, they used it for evil, I know that. But I'm not sure the symbol is evil.

But I would like to add something to what was said about Christians already being mostly deluded and crazed and not needing Theosophy to poison them and others, or turn people away from truth.-- and in reference to the Nazi's.

Did you know Nazi Germany was a Christian Empire? No, not at the Vermach Level, but at the people level? The people of Germany were Christians.-- went to church, read the Bible, got their children baptised etc.. Says a lot about people who say they are Christians when the majority of them can be so easily fooled as to follow a Lucifer worshipping murderer and believe every thing he says as though it were from the mouth of ....... er? There wasn't much Theosophy at that level influencing the people of Germany either.-- just Christianity.

And that's not to say Christianity is bad. But it does point up that I could use this example as an excuse to hate Chrisitianity, sort of the way you are using the misappropriation of esoteric knowledge to hate it.

[miracles]

Dear Uncia,

Thank you for your response, I enjoyed it.



Apart from the Nazi's perverting the swastika I see nothing wrong with this symbol. I have two or three of them in pictures in my home, one of which is right next to my front door and above the swastika I have an eight inch San Damiano Cross, while above that I have a large yantra. I also have at least one swastika on my puja altar. I see it in a Hindu context, and beautiful it is too!



Don't you see organisations like the TS don't have to lead people away from Christ and Christianity, as Christians and Christianity does that itself! It has been doing it for a long time. I can tell you that while many folk at the TS found much spiritual truth in the teachings of Christ they turned away from Christianity to groups like the TS because of the attitude and behaviour of many Christians. They found them sickening and disgusting. They were searching for spirituality but what they found in Christians and churches revolted them. The kind of Christian often found in forums such as this turns people away by the droves. Quite ironic really. Don't blame the TS or other such groups, don't think it is some dark conspiracy to steal souls away from Christianity. The fact is Christianity failed many of these people. It let them down. The found it hollow, ignornant, judgemental, wanting in many ways, and lacking in love, kindness, and compassion. Christianity and Christians should take the splinter out their own eye first and then question if the actions of many Christians inspire and attract people to join them, or if their actions drives others away to seek spirituality elsewhere. Many people I met at the TS were searching for spiritual truth and I think many would have gladly accepted some form of Christianity if it wasn't for the foul attitude and behaviour of many "Christians". As Gandhi said "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."




While certainly a fair bit is wrapped in esoteric language, there isn't a lot of it in wrapped in mysticism. Yet practically every belief system has its fair share of mysticism that is difficult to understand if one isn't spiritually mature enough and is lacking the personal insight to grasp it. I certainly wouldn't say the TS tries to keep many secrets, quite the opposite really. If anything people at all levels of the TS were more than happy to share their knowledge. They actually couldn't attract enough people, as the TS is a dwindling organisation these days and has been since at least the 1960's. It is but a minor fragment of what it was back at its peak.

Since it appears I'm so far the only one here with experience of the TS I take it I'm so far the only one who can speak from first hand experience of them, their teachings and the people involved. Lucky me? Yet it strikes me that nobody has asked about that, but instead draw their conclusions from one sided, heavily opinionated sources. You have to laugh! :D

Where all ears. Post a thread topic on it. Im very interested in any and all inside information. However for you to conclude that you dont agree with it was enough for me. And yet Dedicate is singing your praises for your enlighetend wisdom and you havent said anything yet. LOL.

Also people being turned away from Christ/the truth because of the behaviour of illedged Christians is the same as me being turned away from theosophy because of you. So what! It's a meaningless point and a meaningless intejection into any discussion. It's just another unbeliveing spear to juck at believers, it wont wash or hold water come judgement day. Its like saying Im never going to eat icecream because that asshole over there is eating it. What a pile of BS. Now spill the beans. What have you got?

PS. A lie is a lie not the truth. Meditate on that and see if you can figure out where I coming form. That's a riddel for dedicate, he likes riddles and half truths.

Everyone around here loves quoting Ghandi, whats with that?

I don't care what the christians say - Jesus Christ is a reality - Charles Manson.

PPS. People hate Christ and the truth - saying they hate Christians is an excuse for rejecting Christ. Having said that I have rejected Churchianity but I didnt throw out my bible and run of to the TS and into the arms of Satan. LOL. There are lot of people on this site whos attitude I detest, and their foulness belies belief and they arent Christians pal, so what's your bloody point, are you going to make one or continue a running commentry of why people find christians sickening and disgusting? Because it making me sick reading that crap.

Dedicate, what's your point too? What's the point of this thread topic and all the text your posting that you havent even botherd to freaken read? Huh? Speak up!

Facist Religio is not an excuse for rejecting the truth any more than an asshole proclaiming to be Christian is and excuse for rejecting Christ.

I would suggest to you that there aren't too many genuine followers of the way on this or other sites like it, because frankly the lies here make it a very unsavoury and unpleasant place to be at times particularly when people dont care for the truth. And on this site, I would suggest the believers that do stick around give as good if not better as they get, and more often than not they are driving mockers away not genuine seekers of the truth. However in conclusion, most genuine belivers wouldnt come near a David Icke Religious fourm with a barge pole because it is way to offensive to anyone with a genuine Love for the Lord Jesus Christ. Im actually praying to Him right now to keep me away from this place because I'm done with it.

[dedicate]

You're funny. Are you sure you are not a commedian posing as -- what-ever-it-is you are posing as?


It is because of you, Miracles, not "illeged Christians" that people are turned off from Christianity. People around here anyway. People around here are somewhat educated and can see through the emotionalism that drives you.

I could give you some pointers on a better way to proceed with this audience, but you don't seem to be able to hear what people are telling you,,and I'm learning myself. For example, even if you are right.. even if you are right... you are going about it incorrectly.

If I haven't responded to any of your questions let me know and I will RETALIATE!!!

[miracles]

Your funny. Are you sure you are not a commedian posing as -- what-ever-it-is you are posing as?


It is because of you, Miracles, not "illeged Christians" that people are turned off from Christianity. People around here anyway. People around here are somewhat educated and can see through the emotionalism that drives you.

I could give you some pointers on a better way to proceed with this audience, but you don't seem to be able to hear what people are telling you,,and I'm learning myself. For example, even if you are right.. even if you are right... you are going about it incorrectly.

If I haven't responded to any of your questions let me know and I will RETALIATE!!!

People are turned off Christianity because of me? I never said I was christian did I?

OKAY EVERYONE WHO HAS BEEN TURNED OFF CHRISTIANITY BECAUSE OF ME PLEASE PM ME AND GIVE ME THE REASON WHY I HAVE TURNED YOU OFF. HOWEVER YOU MUST HAVE BEEN GENUINELY CONSIDERING RECEIVING CHRIST AS YOUR SAVIOUR PRIOR TO BEING PUT OFF BY ME. THANKS.

If one person answers this and convinces me they are genuine I will leave this site never to be seen again, because it would hurt me deeply if what you have said is true.

Answer this question then...

Why are you posting material on this thread that you have not even had the courtesy to read first?

[dedicate]

I would give my own testimonial, but I don't want to be the cause of your leaving us forever. But you may be opening the door for every kind of prankster spirit to comment.

I don't understand why you are making a big deal about this "thing" I said. But you insist, and I did say I would answer any unanswered questions.. so..

You would have to go back to the initial posts in order to have some understanding of it,, and what specifically you asked,, and what I specifically answered. In the first post, it was said i would open a random book of H.P.B.'s to a random page and post the information as it read. Well, in this way, I don't need to read the information before posting it, and that is what you asked, ie "Did you read before posting?". I read after posting, and I re-read it, and studied it and got aquanted with the material after posting, not before.

Actually you were implying with the question -- i was still commenting on things before viewing them, or in this case before reading them, which was in reference to another thread. And you seemed rather upset about me doing that too! So, instead of telling you I had read the material before posting, I answered, "No, I have not read the material before posting it". -- But that is totally in line with the method of the presentation of the material.


So... did you keep commenting on this thread and then mentioning that you hadn't been reading any of it, just to get my egg? I thought maybe that was the case.

[shaivite]

Where all ears. Post a thread topic on it. Im very interested in any and all inside information.


I'm happy to share most things. Though I doubt many will find the inside scoop to be not very news worth. :( If there are questions please feel free and I'll do my best to answer them. Though I will say I'm no expert and I'm a bit foggy on a fair bit of TS philosophy.


Also people being turned away from Christ/the truth because of the behaviour of illedged Christians is the same as me being turned away from theosophy because of you.


I would say it is different. I'm not here saying Theosophy is the one and only truth. I'm not here to promote Theosophy, in fact I'm happy to criticise it. I'm not here condemning a topic that I don't really know much about. Whether or not somebody is attracted to Theosophy or not isn't my concern as I don't have a vested interest in it. I'm also not here denoucing the teachings of Christ and praising Blavatsky et al.

The only reason I spoke up was because I've had some experience of Theosophy, hung out with some of its lowest to highest members (apart from the president of the organisation - I left India before I got the chance) and could perhaps offer a more balanced first hand opinion of it.


So what! It's a meaningless point and a meaningless intejection into any discussion. It's just another unbeliveing spear to juck at believers, it wont wash or hold water come judgement day. Its like saying Im never going to eat icecream because that asshole over there is eating it. What a pile of BS. Now spill the beans. What have you got?


What can I tell you? Over the years I've been involved with several different groups such as the TS, The London School of Economic Science (a Ouspensky/Gurdjieff philosophy offshoot school that came under the guidance of the Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math), the Ordo Enochiana Sodalis Lux, Shanti Mandir/Kashmir Shaivism, and some other loose magickal associations. The TS compares rather favourably I guess, though it has all but faded away these days. some of the groups I've been involved with were highly secretive, but the TS wasn't. It was very open and encouraged debate on its own teachings. There were many good people at it, and as always a few drifters who weren't so great. Some were hardcore and very dedicated, yet not elitist (apart from maybe this one guy who seemed like he was on a bit of a trip at times). Many members weren't that dedicated and followed no particular line of spiritual practice. They seemed to use the TS as a means to broaden their understanding of a variety of spiritual subjects by contact with folk who were experienced in them. The TS branch I was particularly involved with was very open with information and had a very large old library which covered just about every religous and mystical topic one could think of. Any member could borrow from it on any topic. Similarly if you had any questions some one was always willing to take the time to explain any question on any topic you had. It did have something of an old school feel that was very different to more modern new age groups. The premises itself was an old three or four story victorian building. Must be worth a fortune! This is the last of 30 groups that used to run in this one city back in the TS glory days. There was always talks going on covering a wide variety of topics and also speakers from outside the TS. But there was nothing sinister, anti-Christian, etc. Not in the slightest. It was stimulating and encouraged people to explore whatever path of spirituality appealed to you. You could be a Jew, a Christian, there was even a Scientologist, and nobody would criticize or attack you for your beliefs. If anything they would ask, enquire and try to learn the value of what you were into. There are some experiences that I had with the TS that I won't share in a forum such as this. They were positive illuminating experiences, but this isn't the time or place for some things.

At the Indian HQ it was a bit more full on, or as full on as India can be! LOL I saw some interesting things there (which I won't go into here) and met some people who I thought were genuine spiritual folk who had did a lot of work on developing themselves. Though some of the old timers British folk there (one in particular comes to mind) seemed rather stuck in a British Raj mindset. They were nice, but seemed to look down on some of the Indian people who worked on the estate. I wasn't impressed by this. The place itself was amazing and covered in tropical forest.

I'm not sure what else to tell you. I can tell you about the organisation, how it is run, what kind of thing they teach, how they teach, about the people, its financial structure and income, its numbers, and so forth. But I suspect nobody will be really interested in this as it is a bit dull and doesn't really fit into the Theosophy is evil model.


Everyone around here loves quoting Ghandi, whats with that?


Check out the writings of Gandhi and find out! :) Though I will warn you his autobiography is a bit dry. Better checking out his shorter more specific works.


I don't care what the christians say - Jesus Christ is a reality - Charles Manson.


LOL Very good. :D


PPS. People hate Christ and the truth - saying they hate Christians is an excuse for rejecting Christ. Having said that I have rejected Churchianity but I didnt throw out my bible and run of to the TS and into the arms of Satan. LOL.


I didn't throw out my bible either and one of my favourite books is still 'The Imitation of Christ'. I also enjoy some other Christian works such as The Cloud of Unknowning and the writings of Meister Eckhart. I've even gave away several copies of this the Imitation to Christian friends as it is a beautiful and wonderful work so full of humility. I recommend it to anyone, regardless of what form of spiritualityor religion they engage in.


There are lot of people on this site whos attitude I detest, and their foulness belies belief and they arent Christians pal, so what's your bloody point, are you going to make one or continue a running commentry of why people hate fowl christians?


Maybe I'll continue with my commentary since you seem to be enjoying it so much! LOL I tend to prefer to keep a low profile much of the time. I've been a member (been visiting longer) for about 8 months and have only posted about 45 posts in that time. I tend not to speak about something unless I have something worth contributing or have knowledge and/or experience of that topic. I pretty much said all I had originally planned to say in my first post. I didn't wish to get into a running discussion. I thought from my time with the TS I could maybe add some balance and first hand experience to the discussion. Nothing more, nothing less.


However i conclusion, most genuine beliver swouldnt come near a David Icke Religious fourm with a barge pole because it is way to offensive to anyone with a genuine Love for the Lord jesus Christ.


That just makes it all the better a place to practice the teachings of Christ! :)

[miracles]

I'm happy to share most things. Though I doubt many will find the inside scoop to be not very news worth. :( If there are questions please feel free and I'll do my best to answer them. Though I will say I'm no expert and I'm a bit foggy on a fair bit of TS philosophy.



I would say it is different. I'm not here saying Theosophy is the one and only truth. I'm not here to promote Theosophy, in fact I'm happy to criticise it. I'm not here condemning a topic that I don't really know much about. Whether or not somebody is attracted to Theosophy or not isn't my concern as I don't have a vested interest in it. I'm also not here denoucing the teachings of Christ and praising Blavatsky et al.

The only reason I spoke up was because I've had some experience of Theosophy, hung out with some of its lowest to highest members (apart from the president of the organisation - I left India before I got the chance) and could perhaps offer a more balanced first hand opinion of it.



What can I tell you? Over the years I've been involved with several different groups such as the TS, The London School of Economic Science (a Ouspensky/Gurdjieff philosophy offshoot school that came under the guidance of the Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math), the Ordo Enochiana Sodalis Lux, Shanti Mandir/Kashmir Shaivism, and some other loose magickal associations. The TS compares rather favourably I guess, though it has all but faded away these days. some of the groups I've been involved with were highly secretive, but the TS wasn't. It was very open and encouraged debate on its own teachings. There were many good people at it, and as always a few drifters who weren't so great. Some were hardcore and very dedicated, yet not elitist (apart from maybe this one guy who seemed like he was on a bit of a trip at times). Many members weren't that dedicated and followed no particular line of spiritual practice. They seemed to use the TS as a means to broaden their understanding of a variety of spiritual subjects by contact with folk who were experienced in them. The TS branch I was particularly involved with was very open with information and had a very large old library which covered just about every religous and mystical topic one could think of. Any member could borrow from it on any topic. Similarly if you had any questions some one was always willing to take the time to explain any question on any topic you had. It did have something of an old school feel that was very different to more modern new age groups. The premises itself was an old three or four story victorian building. Must be worth a fortune! This is the last of 30 groups that used to run in this one city back in the TS glory days. There was always talks going on covering a wide variety of topics and also speakers from outside the TS. But there was nothing sinister, anti-Christian, etc. Not in the slightest. It was stimulating and encouraged people to explore whatever path of spirituality appealed to you. You could be a Jew, a Christian, there was even a Scientologist, and nobody would criticize or attack you for your beliefs. If anything they would ask, enquire and try to learn the value of what you were into. There are some experiences that I had with the TS that I won't share in a forum such as this. They were positive illuminating experiences, but this isn't the time or place for some things.

At the Indian HQ it was a bit more full on, or as full on as India can be! LOL I saw some interesting things there (which I won't go into here) and met some people who I thought were genuine spiritual folk who had did a lot of work on developing themselves. Though some of the old timers British folk there (one in particular comes to mind) seemed rather stuck in a British Raj mindset. They were nice, but seemed to look down on some of the Indian people who worked on the estate. I wasn't impressed by this. The place itself was amazing and covered in tropical forest.

I'm not sure what else to tell you. I can tell you about the organisation, how it is run, what kind of thing they teach, how they teach, about the people, its financial structure and income, its numbers, and so forth. But I suspect nobody will be really interested in this as it is a bit dull and doesn't really fit into the Theosophy is evil model.



Check out the writings of Gandhi and find out! :) Though I will warn you his autobiography is a bit dry. Better checking out his shorter more specific works.



LOL Very good. :D



I didn't throw out my bible either and one of my favourite books is still 'The Imitation of Christ'. I also enjoy some other Christian works such as The Cloud of Unknowning and the writings of Meister Eckhart. I've even gave away several copies of this the Imitation to Christian friends as it is a beautiful and wonderful work so full of humility. I recommend it to anyone, regardless of what form of spiritualityor religion they engage in.



Maybe I'll continue with my commentary since you seem to be enjoying it so much! LOL I tend to prefer to keep a low profile much of the time. I've been a member (been visiting longer) for about 8 months and have only posted about 45 posts in that time. I tend not to speak about something unless I have something worth contributing or have knowledge and/or experience of that topic. I pretty much said all I had originally planned to say in my first post. i din't wish to get into a running discussion. I thought from my time with the TS I could maybe add some balance and first hand experience to the discussion. Nothing more, nothing less.



That just makes it all the better a place to practice the teachings of Christ! :)

I turn both cheeks after having bent over. :D

Thanks for the explaination

[miracles]

I would give my own testimonial, but I don't want to be the cause of your leaving us forever. But you may be opening the door for every kind of prankster spirit to comment.

I don't understand why you are making a big deal about this "thing" I said. But you insist.. so..

You would have to go back to the initial posts in order to have some understanding of it,, and what specifically you asked,, and what I specifically answered. In the first post, it was said i would open a random book of H.P.B.'s to a random page and post the information as it read. Well, in this way, I don't need to read the information before posting it, and that is what you asked, ie "Did you read before posting?". I read after posting, and I re-read it, and studied it and got aquanted with the material after posting, not before.

Actually you were implying with the question -- i was still commenting on things before viewing them, or in this case before reading them, which was in reference to another thread. And you seemed rather upset about me doing that too! So, instead of telling you I had read the material before posting, I answered, "No, I have not read the material before posting it". -- But that is totally in line with the method of the presentation of the material.


So... did you keep commenting on this thread and then mentioning that you hadn't been reading any of it, just to get my egg? I thought maybe that was the case.

No you said you hadn't read it.

I would be very surprised If I had put you off receiving Christ dedicate, but If I have, feel free to explain publically in this forum, why? It does seem clear that you have taken a resentment towards me due to our pervious discussion on the bible. Thats been obvious to me for a long time. Why is that?

[shaivite]

Yes. Good. There is a lot of wisdom in what you are saying Shaivite. I see it, but the Fundamentalist does not respond to Wisdom. Odd,, they seem only to find affinity with the HARD LINE and DEAD LETTER. In a previous thread, I recommend therapy, not because they are crazy, but because they are stubborn and cold. -- totally antithetical to Relgion. Problem is they don't see it, and thus wont seek help.


This mentality seems to be present in large forums everywhere, more or less. I normally won't comment on it, as I've learned there is little point, unless that is somebody is ruthlessly stomping on the beliefs and faith of another. I might chip in then. Open minded discussion and intelligent educated debate is one thing, but this seems to be increasingly a rarity these days (I'm sure you have noticed). I do try to be fair and honest, but direct - I don't mind calling something as I see it. Equally if I'm wrong I'll happily admit it. But I always attempt to do it with love and compassion (easier said than done at times!:o), though sometimes I do find the Fundies try my patience, which is a great learning opportunity for me! :) LOL

And while I might call into question aspects of somebody's beliefs (usually if they are attacking another person's or forcing their's upon them) I won't call into question their faith. Meaning that, such as in this case, I might question some of the ways and means of Christianity or somebodies understanding and practice of it, but I wouldn't want to damage or challenge somebody's faith in Christ. Faith is too precise a thing, too important a thing that I wouldn't want to attack it, but instead maybe help deepen and broaden it if possible. I don't want to convert anyone to my faith, rather I would like to see everyone reach a more profound and insightful understanding of their own. Well, I can dream...

[dedicate]

Did you check to see if your information was correct?

I'll refer you to post 22, pg3 -- in which you asked, "Did you bother to read the information prior to posting it?" and post #23 in which I responded, "No. I did not read the information before posting it"...

---------------------------------------------------------

I could give my testimonial.. but basically it boils down to something you don't see. You will miss the point, and things will go astray,, so we will not get anywhere with the discussion. I guarentee you, it is not worth it. Finit!

------------------------------------------------

The answer to your last question may be the nature of fundamentalism. Now if you want to believe -- Christianity is the only valid religion in the whole wide universe, much less all the world, then that is your business. What isn't your business is my soul and my path and it being interfeared with. Fundies don't understand this. -- I'm sure you have heard it before on this board -- 'craming down our throats'? I've never been accused of that. I've been accused of things but not that. Have you? Have you wondered why?


Anyway, I could talk on and on about this. You really hit a raw spot,, because even though you don't see it, I like religion,, I like Jesus, and saving people, and going to heaven, and everybody loving God, -- to put things in Christian Terminology. So, I guess, it really erks me when I get into things with fundamentalist because they tell me it is not possible for me to be like that, because I'm not a Christian. Right? -- but that's My business, my path, my soul your talking about! What do you think?

[miracles]

Did you check to see if your information was correct?

[QUOTE]I'll refer you to post 22, pg3 -- in which you asked, "Did you bother to read the information prior to posting it?" and post #23 in which I responded, "No. I did not read the information before posting it"...
I know, now for the fifth time, are you going to give me an explaination as to why you felt the need to post information you hadn't bothered to even read please Ddedicate, what are you hoping to achieve by that?


I could give my testimonial.. but basically it boils down to something you don't see. You will miss the point, and things will go astray,, so we will not get anywhere with the discussion. I guarentee you, it is not worth it. Finit!

In that case can please cease and desist from making statements like "I am the reason people turn away form Christianity" and "everyone on this site knows I am emotional etc etc" How dare you speak for everyone else. What? Are you having private converstations and conducting poles about me or something? I thought it was a public forum. It wouldnt surprise me if I'm being back stabbed considering I'm being stabbed in the chest. So what? Frankly I couldnt give a monkeys what you or anyone else on this site thinks of me, because they dont bloody well know me and I dont come here for my self esteem and to be affirmed as a Human being. lol. Saying thngs like that dedicate is petty and childish.


The answer to your last question may be the nature of fundamentalism. Now if you want to believe -- Christianity is the only valid religion in the whole wide universe, much less all the world, then that is your business.

Well thanks very much, but I dont need your permission or blessing do I?

What isn't your business is my soul and my path and it being interfeared with. Fundies don't understand this. -- I'm sure you have heard it before on this board -- 'craming down our throats'? I've never been accused of that. I've been accused of things but not that. Have you? Have you wondered why?

I resent being referred to as a fundie, it's a throw away line and it means nothing. The "religion" of Christianity has been bastardised and plagurised from the beginning of time, form the Roman Catholic church to Mormons calling them self the The Church of Jesus Christ of later saints to the insanity of the pentecostal and charasmatic chaos movements and numerpous other cults that claim to be Christian, in addition to tat we have the mystery schoold and pagans claiming that Christ as smybol stolen from them and so on and so forth. None of this changes the truth of the matter.

"Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under
heaven given among men by which we must be saved." Acts 4:12

Lets replace the word fundamentalist for a moment to allow me to make a point. Lets call it a Factualist. I have harped on this till Im blue in the face - the bible regardless of opionion(thats right it's not open to opinion because it's in writen down) IE it is a published book, what is written, is what is bloody written. I believe what it says and I regognize when it is being misquoted and misinterpreted. It is the book of my religious faith. Since this is the freaken religious forum and I know and understand my religion and my religion's book, I recognise charlatens and imposters pretty quickly, and again I know what the bible says, and sometimes I quote from it and correct blatant misquotes. If that's ramming something down someones throat, then stop opening your bloody big trap with bullshit about the topic.

Again this is a religious forum where blasphemy and untruth is shoved down my throat daily (have you seen Lucifer Horus's so called essays for example?), but I dont have to be here and I dont have to read it, look at or engage in discussion about it. In my normal every day life, I dont shove my beliefs down peoples throats. But on a religious discussion forum I share them and air them. So keep things in bloody context please.

Anyway, I could talk on and on about this. You really hit a raw spot,, because even though you don't see it, I like religion,, I like Jesus, and saving people, and going to heaven, and everybody loving God, -- to put things in Christian Terminology. So, I guess, it really erks me when I get into things with fundamentalist because they tell me it is not possible for me to be like that, because I'm not a Christian. Right? -- but that's My business, my path, my soul your talking about! What do you think?

I dont know what you are, do you? It's none of my business, but what you say on a public forum is my business, and I have every write to comment on something I believe to be bullshit or agree with something I believe to be correct. You can be like what ever you want and say what ever you want. So can I.

The bible states that "I am the way the truth and the life (jesus), NO-ONE gets to heaven with out going through Christ.

Oprah the NWO, the one world religious movement, the pope and Dedicate will tell you there are many ways to get there. Who are you going to believe?

The only people on this forum who have eluded having things rammed down their throught by me where Folz and Deadskinballs of this world, and all they had for me andmy beliefs was hatred and disdain, but generally what people dont like most, and what made them the most angry was when I mentional eternal damnation and hell, which I have always avoided talking about, but I only ever got involved in this part of things when people who claimed to be "christians" started saying things like it doesnt exist, there is no such place etc etc. Well sorry biblicaly speaking, there is.

Have a nice day and God bless you.

[uncia]

Apart from the Nazi's perverting the swastika I see nothing wrong with this symbol. I have two or three of them in pictures in my home, one of which is right next to my front door and above the swastika I have an eight inch San Damiano Cross, while above that I have a large yantra. I also have at least one swastika on my puja altar. I see it in a Hindu context, and beautiful it is too!

I think you must be a Hindu.


Don't you see organisations like the TS don't have to lead people away from Christ and Christianity, as Christians and Christianity does that itself! It has been doing it for a long time. I can tell you that while many folk at the TS found much spiritual truth in the teachings of Christ they turned away from Christianity to groups like the TS because of the attitude and behaviour of many Christians. They found them sickening and disgusting. They were searching for spirituality but what they found in Christians and churches revolted them. The kind of Christian often found in forums such as this turns people away by the droves. Quite ironic really. Don't blame the TS or other such groups, don't think it is some dark conspiracy to steal souls away from Christianity. The fact is Christianity failed many of these people. It let them down. The found it hollow, ignornant, judgemental, wanting in many ways, and lacking in love, kindness, and compassion. Christianity and Christians should take the splinter out their own eye first and then question if the actions of many Christians inspire and attract people to join them, or if their actions drives others away to seek spirituality elsewhere. Many people I met at the TS were searching for spiritual truth and I think many would have gladly accepted some form of Christianity if it wasn't for the foul attitude and behaviour of many "Christians". As Gandhi said "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

I understand that Ghandi was turned away from a particular church in South Africa because he was not white, and he objected. Well, may be that was offensive, but perhaps he failed to understand that his conduct was taken as an act of political rebellion - and there was nothing to prevent him going to a black church anyway.

Unfortunately your argument is a delusion.There is clearly a difference between Christ and Christianity as practiced in this world. Anyone who forsakes Christ because of Christians either has a weak faith or no faith at all. Of course I too have had my fair share of obnoxious pseudo- Christians to contend with, but the answer to that is that no-one forces you to associate with them, not even the Christ. The apostle Paul himself separated from those he disagreed with. In fact he commands Christians to separate from those who do not follow the way and who claim to be Christians.



While certainly a fair bit is wrapped in esoteric language, there isn't a lot of it in wrapped in mysticism. Yet practically every belief system has its fair share of mysticism that is difficult to understand if one isn't spiritually mature enough and is lacking the personal insight to grasp it. I certainly wouldn't say the TS tries to keep many secrets, quite the opposite really. If anything people at all levels of the TS were more than happy to share their knowledge. They actually couldn't attract enough people, as the TS is a dwindling organisation these days and has been since at least the 1960's. It is but a minor fragment of what it was back at its peak.

The reason for that is surely because (a) it has been widely exposed for the rubbish that it is, being closely aligned to the occult (b) there is no money in it, whilst there is plenty of money in Christianity. The charlatans are unfortunately attracted to the big denominations these days - Methodism and the Presbyterianism have become horribly corrupted by libertines. The big denominations is where the money is, whereas in the days of old, scandalous behaviour was perhaps not tolerated even in the big denominations, and there was plenty of interest in ancient theurgy.


Since it appears I'm so far the only one here with experience of the TS I take it I'm so far the only one who can speak from first hand experience of them, their teachings and the people involved. Lucky me? Yet it strikes me that nobody has asked about that, but instead draw their conclusions from one sided, heavily opinionated sources. You have to laugh! :D
As far as I am aware, at its best it is merely a synthesis of ancient authorities on pagan cults.

[dedicate]

"Oprah the NWO, the one world religious movement, the pope and Dedicate will tell you there are many ways to get there. Who are you going to believe?"

People have to believe what they find true. Let them decide who and what to believe. -- "Jesus is the way and the truth and the light, no man,, etc..etc..". Yes, I get it. Thank you for pointing that out,, ONE MORE TIME! I think I get it. Thank you. Let me go throw up now. (due to scripture being rammed down my throat) -- I guess you think you are doing Chrisianity a big favor by making me want to vomit?

I'm glad that I have been exposed to Christian fundamentalism via forums. This exposer has given me some understanding of the nature of it, things I didn't know before.

Atheism also have I been exposed to.. I've always known there were many who haven't much use for religion, and don't believe in god or afterlife etc.. but I never knew before being part of this forum, the under-the-skin beliefs a lot of atheists obviously hold. For example, I never knew there was such contempt for religion and religion practice; I had always assumed atheist just didn't care much for religion and that was it. But a lot of them are really against it. I'm glad I found that out.

And the poor poor fundamentalist. What it much be like to be at odds with everybody! Don't like the term funddamentalist? Your problem.

Someone pointed out that Christians and Christian behavior was a good reason for a lot of seekers staying away from Christianity. I agree. Then a believer comes on the thread and says, "Yes, but those Christians are not true Christians. Don't judge by their behavior". So, I pointed out that it was his behavior that turned seekers away. He got all offended at that. Sorry, I thought I was being helpful

-------------------------------------------------------------------------


Then I can point to the scripture that says, "Religion was made for Man. Man was not made for religion!"- So, seems to me, if I want to use religion and which religion I use, it is my choice. But the fundie will miss the message and revert to point A and quote another scripture and tell me "You must believe! It says so in John ch.4 v.16." Thank you for pointing out something I already heard a thousand times. I think I get it now.

[uncia]

I think I get it now.
The only reason you started the thread was to attack Christianity. As it says somewhere I read, .... shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. At least I learnt something from this thread, even if you did not.

[miracles]

"Oprah the NWO, the one world religious movement, the pope and Dedicate will tell you there are many ways to get there. Who are you going to believe?"

People have to believe what they find true. Let them decide who and what to believe. -- "Jesus is the way and the truth and the light, no man,, etc..etc..". Yes, I get it. Thank you for pointing that out,, ONE MORE TIME! I think I get it. Thank you. Let me go throw up now. (due to scripture being rammed down my throat) -- I guess you think you are doing Chrisianity a big favor by making me want to vomit?

I'm glad that I have been exposed to Christian fundamentalism via forums. This exposer has given me some understanding of the nature of it, things I didn't know before.

Atheism also have I been exposed to.. I've always known there were many who haven't much use for religion, and don't believe in god or afterlife etc.. but I never knew before being part of this forum, the under-the-skin beliefs a lot of atheists obviously hold. For example, I never knew there was such contempt for religion and religion practice; I had always assumed atheist just didn't care much for religion and that was it. But a lot of them are really against it. I'm glad I found that out.

And the poor poor fundamentalist. What it much be like to be at odds with everybody! Don't like the term funddamentalist? Your problem.

Someone pointed out that Christians and Christian behavior was a good reason for a lot of seekers staying away from Christianity. I agree. Then a believer comes on the thread and says, "Yes, but those Christians are not true Christians. Don't judge by their behavior". So, I pointed out that it was his behavior that turned seekers away. He got all offended at that. Sorry, I thought I was being helpful

-------------------------------------------------------------------------


Then I can point to the scripture that says, "Religion was made for Man. Man was not made for religion!"- So, seems to me, if I want to use religion and which religion I use, it is my choice. But the fundie will miss the message and revert to point A and quote another scripture and tell me "You must believe! It says so in John ch.4 v.16." Thank you for pointing out something I already heard a thousand times. I think I get it now.


I haven't done anything wrong. I'm not offended by you, You carry on fella. And so will I. No one has responded to my request I might add. Must be just you. Scripture makes you sick huh? Well Im glad I found out what makes you tick too. Your not the only one learning things in this place you know. As one other previous poster stated, your lost, very lost, and from what I can gather that poster wasnt a christian either.

All I see in you is a bitter and twisted person. I feel sorry for you.

[uncia]

... and from what I can gather that poster wasnt a christian either.
...charming. What will you do if you're wrong?

[dedicate]

I think the thread was working while discussing Theosophy and Madam Blavatsky. Maybe we can pull the thread back on track after becoming Fort Appache David Icke Forum. And I'm not blaiming anyone, -- the fault for letting everything go in another direction was mostly mine.

Just to re-cap. -- this thread serves as an investigation into the work of Helen Blavatsky's book, ISIS UNVEILED. We began by picking a random page from Vol.2 and landed on page 252, the start of Ch.VI. Some mention of the origin of the Bible and Christian symbols, seems to be the theme so far. Interesting stuff.

In addition here-in we are trying to determine why Blavatsky has received so much bad Press of late -- as the original promoter of the New World Order's One World Religion. Does she deserve it? Is she being maligned? Did everyone see the recent Rence.com article? http://www.rense.com/general85/lucifer.htm Now this article and many like it, associate her with the Lusis Trust, Alice Bailey, and even Albert Pike! In my opinion there is a lot of misunderstanding in that article, but generally it is the Press H.P.B gets.

For the time being my judgement of her will depend on what we get from her actual writings from the book we are presenting. To point to who Alice Bailey was or was not, and any association, is left to speculation at present. What I do know is that we should not judge Blavatsky by who might be associated with her thought.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is a further quote from the book -- exactly where we left off,, way back 50 posts ago!

It is well known, that the earliest Christian emblems -- before it was ever attempted to represent the bodily appearance of Jesus -- were the Lamb, the Good Shepherd, and the Fish. The origin of the latter emblem, which has so puzzled the archaeologists, thus becomes comprehensible. The whole secret lies in the easily-ascertained fact that, while in the Kabala, the King Messiah is called "Interpreter," or Revealer of the mystery, and shown to be the fifth emanation, in the Talmud -- for reasons we will now explain -- the Messiah is very often designated as "DAG," or the Fish. This is an inheritance from the Chaldees, and relates -- as the very name indicates -- to the Babylonian Dagon, the man-fish, who was the instructor and interpreter of the people, to whom he appeared. Abarbanel explains the name, by stating that the sign of his (Messiah's) coming "is the conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter in the sign Pisces."* Therefore, as the Christians were intent upon identifying their Christos with the Messiah of the Old Testament, they adopted it so readily as to forget that its true origin might be traced still farther back than the Babylonian Dagon. How eagerly and closely the ideal of Jesus was united, by the early Christians, with every imaginable kabalistic and Pagan tenet, may be inferred from the language of Clemens, of Alexandria, addressed to his brother co-religionists.


ED: (here in is a symbol I'm unable to show. It is a the Tettragrammaton, the Star of David an illustration of a Fish all within a Pentagon).


When they were debating upon the choice of the most appropriate symbol to remind them of Jesus, Clemens advised them in the following words: "Let the engraving upon the gem of your ring be either a dove, or a ship running before the wind (the Argha), or a fish." Was the good father, when writing this sentence, laboring under the recollection of Joshua, son of Nun (called Jesus in the Greek and Slavonian versions); or had he forgotten the real interpretation of these Pagan symbols?

Joshua, son of Nun, or Nave (Navis), could have with perfect propriety adopted the image of a ship, or even of a fish, for Joshua means Jesus, son of the fish-god; but it was really too hazardous to connect the emblems of Venus, Astarte, and all the Hindu goddesses -- the argha, dove, and fish -- with the "immaculate" birth of their god! This looks very much as if in the early days of Christianity but little difference was made between Christ, Bacchus, Apollo, and the Hindu Christna, the incarnation of Vishnu, with whose first avatar this symbol of the fish originated.

In the Hari-purana, in the Bagaved-gitta, as well as in several other books, the god Vishnu is shown as having assumed the form of a fish with a human head, in order to reclaim the Vedas lost during the deluge. Having enabled Visvamitra to escape with all his tribe in the ark, Vishnu, pitying weak and ignorant humanity, remained with them for some time. It was this god who taught them to build houses, cultivate the land, and to thank the unknown Deity whom he represented, by building temples and instituting a regular worship; and, as he remained half-fish, half-man, all the time, at every sunset he used to return to the ocean, wherein he passed the night.

"It is he," says the sacred book, "who taught men, after the diluvium, all that was necessary for their happiness.

"One day he plunged into the water and returned no more, for the earth had covered itself again with vegetation, fruit, and cattle.

"But he had taught the Brahmas the secret of all things" (Hari-purana).

So far, we see in this narrative the double of the story given by the Babylonian Berosus about Oannes, the fish-man, who is no other than Vishnu -- unless, indeed, we have to believe that it was Chaldea which civilized India!

[dedicate]

Blavatsky has given no evidence of the Cross being a Christian Symbol even to the time of Nicea. She states the early Churches were looking for an appropriate symbol at least till the time of Clemens, but the cross was not much in use or considered.

She points out, one symbol used, and still used, is that of the Fish or Fishes. But where does this symbol come from? and Why would it be used to represent Chrisitianity? She states, there are ancient uses for the symbol in mythology and such and she even states Jesus means "son of the Fish God" AKA Vishnu?. I don't know where she got that, but I'm going to do some research to find out if this is true.

She does not mention the importance of Fish in the New Testament, though. And maybe this is fine, since just because Fish and Fishing had significance in the Gospels, this would not necessarily indicate it would make an appropriate Symbol for Christianty. In my mind, the importance of Fish in the gospel stories, is a symbol of a symbol of significance (see below). ie.. the gospel fish stories do not symbolize Christianity, but are a symbol of the symbol of Christianity.


She does give us one clue as to why Fish is a Christian symbol, but she does not develop it here or yet. What she seems to speak much about is the Vishnu incarnation as a fish and that Hindu mythology --. Maybe, the understanding of Vishnu's incarnation as a Fish,, is used here to show the Fish symbology was used even 1,000's of years ago, thus relavant as a religious symbol, and possibly relavant to the Christian tradition, but too far back in time to trace, even to the Christian's pre Atlantean (pre Noah) roots. The idea she has not yet developed, but an important one, is the fact Jesus was born during an astrologically significant event pertaining to the sign "Pisces".-- she gives only brief mention of this.

Pisces is the Astrological sign of The Fishes. How that relates to Christianity is this -- Jesus was born on the cusp of the Piscean Age, at the very begining of our current age. The Theosophist knows, with each new age, there is a new dispensation, a new evolutionary progression for Mankind. Jesus was/is the Avatara (guiding light) of the Piscean Age; Christianity, the teachings of the Christ, have ushered in the Age of Pisces, and these teachings have been a major factor in mankinds spiritual and cultural development for 2,000 years. The sign of the Fish (Pisces), then would be very appropriate to characterize Christianity. But did the early Christians recognize this? Did the authorities? Did they tell their "flocks" the use of fish to symbolize Christianity was due to there being an abundance of Fishy stories in the New Testament? while all the while they new the real astrological reason?-- The Piscean Age and Christianity's influence-significance?

These are the gems we find in the work of Blavatsky and you really have to dig for them -- but maybe this is the point. Maybe, a lot of what she was writing and saying, was given with the expectation that one must work at finding the meaning? Not much is going to be said, right out straight. Thus, the casual observer will walk away. The unfaithful will turn his nose. But there are treasures here-in.

-----------------------------------------------------

P.S. you don't like this thread? Go read Kermit is too Green, or Jesus was David Coperfield, or Jesus liked men thread. Or just go turn on the T.V. There is always that.

[1977]

Did they tell their "flocks" the use of fish to symbolize Christianity was due to there being an abundance of Fishy stories in the New Testament? while all the while they new the real astrological reason?-- The Piscean Age and Christianity's influence-significance?
Godfrey Higgins (http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA256&dq=anacalypsis&id=udYHAAAAQAAJ#PPA252,M1) points out that the "end of the age" apparently was known among the public.

Tacitus says, "The generality had a strong persuasion that it was contained in the ancient writings of the priests, that AT THAT VERY TIME the East should prevail: and that some one who should come out of Judea, should obtain the empire of the world: which ambiguities foretold Vespasian and Titus. But the common people (of the Jews), according to the usual influence of human wishes, appropriated to themselves, by their interpretation, this vast grandeur foretold by the fates, nor could be brought to change their opinion for the true, by all their adversities. Suetonius says, There had been for a long time all over the East a constant persuasion that it was (recorded) in the fates (books of the fates, decrees, or fortellings), that AT THAT TIME some one who should come out of Judea should obtain universal dominion. It appeared by the event, that this prediction referred to the Roman Emperor: but the Jews referring it to themselves, rebelled."
...
Josephus says, "That which chiefly excited them (the Jews) to war, was an ambiguous prophecy, which was also found in the sacred books, that at that time some one, within their country, should arise, that should obtain the empire of the whole world.
...
Among the Greeks the same prophecy is found. The Oracle of Delphi was the depository, according to Plato, of an ancient and Secret prophecy of the birth of a son of Apollo, who was to restore the reign of justice and virtue on the earth.4 This, no doubt, was the son alluded to by the Sibyl.

[uncia]

In addition here-in we are trying to determine why Blavatsky has received so much bad Press of late -- as the original promoter of the New World Order's One World Religion. Does she deserve it? Is she being maligned? Did everyone see the recent Rence.com article? http://www.rense.com/general85/lucifer.htm Now this article and many like it, associate her with the Lusis Trust, Alice Bailey, and even Albert Pike! In my opinion there is a lot of misunderstanding in that article, but generally it is the Press H.P.B gets.

All satanists are ultimately unified by their opposition to Christianity. I think the associations are more reasonable than not.



For the time being my judgement of her will depend on what we get from her actual writings from the book we are presenting. To point to who Alice Bailey was or was not, and any association, is left to speculation at present. What I do know is that we should not judge Blavatsky by who might be associated with her thought.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is a further quote from the book -- exactly where we left off,, way back 50 posts ago!

It is well known, that the earliest Christian emblems -- before it was ever attempted to represent the bodily appearance of Jesus -- were the Lamb, the Good Shepherd, and the Fish. The origin of the latter emblem, which has so puzzled the archaeologists, thus becomes comprehensible. The whole secret lies in the easily-ascertained fact that, while in the Kabala, the King Messiah is called "Interpreter," or Revealer of the mystery, and shown to be the fifth emanation, in the Talmud -- for reasons we will now explain -- the Messiah is very often designated as "DAG," or the Fish. This is an inheritance from the Chaldees, and relates -- as the very name indicates -- to the Babylonian Dagon, the man-fish, who was the instructor and interpreter of the people, to whom he appeared. Abarbanel explains the name, by stating that the sign of his (Messiah's) coming "is the conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter in the sign Pisces."* Therefore, as the Christians were intent upon identifying their Christos with the Messiah of the Old Testament, they adopted it so readily as to forget that its true origin might be traced still farther back than the Babylonian Dagon. How eagerly and closely the ideal of Jesus was united, by the early Christians, with every imaginable kabalistic and Pagan tenet, may be inferred from the language of Clemens, of Alexandria, addressed to his brother co-religionists.

Again Blavatsky seeks out the most perverse interpretation. Here is a much more reasonable one:

The fish in particular, was considered important enough to be mentioned many times in the Bible. Clemens was a Greek theologian and noted that letters of the Greek word for fish, ΙΧΘΥΣ (pronounced Ichthys), made the following neat little acrostic:

Ι Iota Χ Chi Θ Theta Υ Upsilon Σ Sigma
Iesous Christos Theou Yios * Soter
Jesus Christ God's Son Saviour

(* pronounced Iios - with emphasis on the 'o')

At this time, the cross was not used as a Christian symbol, so the fish gave them something simple and easily recognisable, plus a motto that described their Jesus as Christ, God's Son, and Saviour.

This use of the fish might also have been partly a protest against the Pagan emperors of the time, who named themselves Theou Yios (God's sons), which appears on an Alexandrian coin minted during of the reign of Domitian (81-96).

Source (http://www.seiyaku.com/customs/fish/fish.html)

[miracles]

...charming. What will you do if you're wrong?

I didnt mean you. And if Im wrong, then thats good.

[dedicate]

I wonder why it is most information for the origin of the Fish symbol for Chrisitianity points to the acrostic mentioned here, but only the simplist of schools will account it to the Gospels and their having an abundance of fish stories and fishermen? I did a google. Seems the 100's of mentions of fish in the NT would make one believe this is the reason for fish being a symbol for Christianity.-- at least at first thought? Most all modern Christians will say it is this acrostic.

Now, I can see why the fish symbol is not accounted to the Gospel fish stories. This acceptance would leave the question, "Why fish then?", and get us thinking. So this presentation of theory still left the original question, and then the authorities went to the acrostic theory. This is the line (no pun intended) most Christians are fed today, as I see by a google, and is the line they will regurgitate for ever and without end.

But this theory -- the acrostic theory --- is more flimsy than the Gospel fish theory. The Gospel theory is a least more pertinent.. but the acrostic theory does not hold water (no pun intended) in any language accept Greek. And then we have the question, Why would the Greek word for Fish being an acrostic merit it being a much used Christian symbol for Christianity? are we to believe the abundance of mention of Fish and fishing in the Gospels is due to this acrostic?!? Are acrostics really that important in spirit life and to Christianitiy?

And, there is the theory, any amount of words could be found to be acrostics. I'm sure one could find an acrostic in the Greek word "tree" useing the phrase Resurrection Way and Life of the World. So why not use "tree", or "shoe", or "desert" or "mountain" as the symbol for Christianity? So,, still, we are still left with the question, why fish?


Could it have something to do with the Piscean Age, the Age of Christianity? Seems more reasonable... The Piscean Age is a galactic influence!(not a solar influence!-- just for you Sun Worshipping theorists) But if this were true, it would be understandable why the modern Christian and Christian for the past 150 years,, will reject this idea and have to revert to finding a more conventional reason;-- Astrology as a science and spiritual endeavor has been rejected by the modern Christian as Sorcery or Theurlogy or something, therefore astrology could have nothing to do with Christianity. A form of circlular reasoning often engaged in by those with stubborn beliefs. In order for Christians to accept this Astological theory they would have to re-evalute their understanding on so many other things; they would have to take Astrology very seriously for example. It is so much easier, I guess, to believe in the High meaning and supreme validity of the Crossword Puzzle.

Some people have found the Astrological symbolism often found in the Bible as a convienient way to discount or discredit Chrisitianity as a whole. Theosophists, rather, find Astrological meaning in the Bible as way to validate Christianity. These are not "mere pagan" symbologies. This is the difference between Theosophy and what many, even on this board, are saying and doing by attributing the truths of Christianity to haveing been a borrowing from other traditions, thus a unreal sort of simple mythology.

Many Christians will accuse me of twisting the facts. But the facts are straightfoward. There is astrological symbolisms and meaning in the Bible. I could think of a dozen other undeniable Astrological references, one for each of the zodiacs. Now, either these are in the Old testament and New Testament because of their spiritual significance or they are there because Christiantity is "merely the morphing of pagan mythologies". No other logical reasons.

[uncia]

There is astrological symbolisms and meaning in the Bible. I could think of a dozen other undeniable Astrological references, one for each of the zodiacs. Now, either these are in the Old testament and New Testament because of their spiritual significance or they are there because Christiantity is "merely the morphing of pagan mythologies". No other logical reasons.

I beg to disagree. Christianity was never about symbolism. The only symbols promoted by Christ were bread and wine, specifically connected with his body and blood. That is the limit of Christian symbolism. In the OT there was more (i.e. Moses snake upon a pole) but in the main it looked forward to the Messiah rather than back towards paganism.

Tts 1:15 Unto the pure all things [are] pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving [is] nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.

What Theosophists and pagans (i.e. satanists) are doing today is to use the bible's ordinary use of words to link them to antecedent pagan cults to which it has no connection, with the deliberate aim of subverting Christianity.

The message of the bible was to separate the people of God from the surrounding idolators by faith in himself. That is why Moses led the people out of Egypt. That has always been the biblical message.

The contrary message of the satanists is that there is no faith and that the bible is a regurgitation of paganism. Nothing could be more abusive of the truth.

[dedicate]

I guess that means in your esitmation -- Christ dying on the Cross, could have been him dying in some other way, since it is not symbolic of anything. He could have been tied to a stone and thrown in the sea just as well,, if there is no symbolic representation to his being crucified?

There could have been 10 Apostles, not 12. There could have been 15 Apostles, even. What would it matter? And the 72 could have been 88. Since, I guess your saying, the symbolism of it doesn't exist?

Maybe Jesus could have been born by the river Jordan on a hot Summer Day and not in the manger? and he could have been born to rich parents, with many other children? If you think he was born in a manger to poor parents, and there is no symbolism to it, what would it matter?

And what about when the desciples layed palm branches at Jesus feet? Symbolic or not? Or the riding of an ass into Jerusalem? Symbolic or not? Then washing the feet of the Apostles? Was that a symbolic act? True they actually happened, but they symbolized something, otherwise some other "thing" could have been used or done! Mincing words!


Aren't you mincing words? Communication isn't possible without symbols. Symbols give meaning. -- Another way to say "the meaning of this" would be "this symbolises this". Myth, symbol, parable, metaphore, representation, all within the same realm --anything that conveys meaning. All the parables are symbolic. In fact,, I think,, all words are symbols. So your critisms here are pointing to the fact -- what you are saying -- 'NO MEANING FOUND IN THE BIBLE STORIES' You are saying that!

Funny that you deny the symbols I find in the Bible,, and say that is not true.-- "No symbols there". But you find symbols in the Bible and say they are true, "Symbols only I see are there, otherwise there are no symbols, because that's not what it is about." Curious. See! You, and other Chrisitians do this,, are saying, "Only the meaning I see and give to the Bible and Christianity is the true meaning!"-- It doesn't matter to you what I'm saying and seeing.

This is truely what you are saying, have always said, and will always say with your "arguements and critisisms" uncia.. "My way of seeing it is the right way,, and any other way of seeing it is the wrong way". Rarely do you put forward a good reasonable arguement, but are merely stubbornly defending your reality. With you it's more about defending your beliefs, then finding truth. Understand?

And who said, "Christianity is about symbolism"? I didn't. I don't miss the meaning of Christianity.



P.S.-- the answer to your next response is this... The question still stands. Then what if the prophecy had said Jesus would die in some other way, or born is some other way, or he would ride into Jerusalem on something other than an ass? The Prophecy could have prophecied something else then, as long as it was fulfilled? Why were those things prophecied? Why not something else? And the other points are not being addressed.

[uncia]

I guess that means in your esitmation -- Christ dying on the Cross, could have been him dying in some other way, since it is not symbolic of anything. He could have been tied to a stone and thrown in the sea just as well,, if there is no symbolic representation to his being crucified?

He had to be crucified to fulfill the law. He had to be cursed for our sins:

Deu 21:22 And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree:

Deu 21:23 you must not leave his body on the tree overnight. Be sure to bury him that same day, because anyone who is hung on a tree is under God's curse.


As Paul said:

Gal 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed [is] every one that hangeth on a tree:



There could have been 10 Apostles, not 12. There could have been 15 Apostles, even. What would it matter? And the 72 could have been 88. Since, I guess your saying, the symbolism of it doesn't exist?

The number 12 is specifically Jewish symbolism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_symbolism) deriving from the OT:

The number twelve, being the product of three and four, typified the union of the people with God. On the table were twelve loaves of show-bread, and the breastplate of the priest contained twelve precious stones as emblems of the twelve tribes of Israel, which camped round about the Sanctuary.


Maybe Jesus could have been born by the river Jordan on a hot Summer Day and not in the manger? and he could have been born to rich parents, with many other children? If you think he was born in a manger to poor parents, and there is no symbolism to it, what would it matter?

We don't know when he was born - or at least it is in the hands of the astronomers to calculate the date precisely given the details of the star that is obviously a planetary conjunction of some sort. He was to be of lowly birth, as had been prophecied.


And what about when the desciples layed palm branches at Jesus feet? Symbolic or not?

I read (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palm_branch_(symbol)) that "The palm branch was a symbol of triumph and victory in pre-Christian times"


Or the riding of an ass into Jerusalem? Symbolic or not?

This was to fulfill the prophecy in Zechariah 9:9-10
See, your king comes to you,
righteous and having salvation,
gentle and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.


Then washing the feet of the Apostles? Was that a symbolic act? True they actually happened, but they symbolized something, otherwise some other "thing" could have been used or done! Mincing words!

Clearly the acts of Christ were imbued with meaning and significance, but they were not symbolic of pagan religion a la Blavatsky.



Aren't you mincing words? Communication isn't possible without symbols. Symbols give meaning. -- Another way to say "the meaning of this" would be "this symbolises this". Myth, symbol, parable, metaphore, representation, all within the same realm --anything that conveys meaning. All the parables are symbolic. In fact,, I think,, all words are symbols. So your critisms here are pointing to the fact -- what you are saying -- 'NO MEANING FOUND IN THE BIBLE' You are saying that!

Funny that you deny the symbols I find in the Bible,, and say that is not true.-- "No symbols there". But you find symbols in the Bible and say they are true, "Symbols only I see are there, otherwise there are no symbols, because that's not what it is about." Curious.

And who said, "Christianity is about symbolism"? I didn't. I don't miss the meaning of Christianity.

I did not say that the NT was without meaning. I said it was without symbols, meaning without reliance on the symbols of paganism. You are trying to twist meaning and symbol so that they are synonyms. At its most basic level every word is symbolic of its meaning, and every act done for a reason, so where does it get you?



P.S.-- the answer to your next response is this... The question still stands. Then what if the prophecy had said Jesus would die in some other way, or born is some other way, or he would ride into Jerusalem on something other than an ass? The Prophecy could have prophecied something else then, as long as it was fulfilled? Why were those things prophecied? Why not something else? And the other points are not being addressed.
Jesus said "Scripture must be fulfilled". It is not given to man to know the mind of God as to why Scripture says what it says.

[dedicate]

Note -- I added a P.S. and it is time stamped. I knew your response would indicate prophetic fulfilment. I know what you think, and I know how you think. Sort of the way I know what my computer will do. But the question still stands,, "Why Crusifixion then? Could it have been something else and still have the same meaning?"

And I think, I already noted that most Christians would accuse me of "twisting" things. Which you did. I could write your responses for you -- so why bother.

[dedicate]

So, there you have it. We've all heard it. No symbolism in Christ on the Cross or Humble Birth of Jesus.-- that was fulfilment of prophecy. And any other symbolism I might have pointed out has been religated to Old Testament Theology, dismissed. Or dismissed as suplanting "meaning" for a pagan mythology. And, then, the parables as symbols is a twisting of words. Not to mention Revelation. Gotta love it.

Seems that the Most Christians will go through any amount of mental gymnastics to feel secure in their own beliefs. I point to a horse and say "that is a horse" and the Christian will say "No, it is not.".== or "depends on what you mean by horse" or "That is only the picture of a horse not a horse". The script is always the same.

Mostly,, the Christian fundamentalist view of religion is unreasonable, impossible. Not recommended. It is unreasonable.-- and reason is the best gauge to truth.

[uncia]

Note -- I added a P.S. and it is time stamped. I knew your response would indicate prophetic fulfilment. I know what you think, and I know how you think. Sort of the way I know what my computer will do. But the question still stands,, "Why Crusifixion then? Could it have been something else and still have the same meaning?"

The short answer is NO.


And I think, I already noted that most Christians would accuse me of "twisting" things. Which you did. I could write your responses for you -- so why bother.
Let's recap:

I said:
Christianity was never about symbolism. The only symbols promoted by Christ were bread and wine, specifically connected with his body and blood. That is the limit of Christian symbolism. In the OT there was more (i.e. Moses snake upon a pole) but in the main it looked forward to the Messiah rather than back towards paganism.
The OT was symbolic, or rather a "type" of the NT. Jewish symbolism, ritual and law imparted meaning to what Christ did on earth. But I referred to Christian symbolism which is rather different. That is, symbolism as connected with Christianity as practiced today. Connected with Christianity in the here and now there is almost no symbolism at all, as it is a spirit religion. The body and blood of CHrist are symbolized by the elements but nothing else specifically.

However if you further look into the NT, many natural items, such as marriage, as spoken of and regarded "types" of heavenly things. Marriage represents the relation of the Christ to the church. In fact what is occuring in the New Testament, is that the Old Testament is being regarded in a spiritual way, and as symbolic of heavenly things. Thus the Jewish Temple is a type of the heavenly temple, the Holy of Holies represents the presence of God, the temple curtain represents the sin barrier between God and man, the Jewish sacrifice as a type or shaddow of the sacrifice of Christ. These are spiritual types or shaddows, whereby the New Testament derives its meaning. But as for "symbols" - there is no "reliance" on any symbols derived from paganism. As Paul says, all scripture is useful for teaching and instruction.

[dedicate]

Thank you.. I asked if the prophets had mentioned something else other than hanging,, and Jesus was not crusified but murdered in some other way, would the meaning be the same? You answered, "No". Thank you. Thank you for giving me that much.

So, now we see there is meaning in the crusifixion beyond it fulfilling the letter of prophecy. At least we can see that. We might even be able to agree there is some symbolic meaning there.

(actually I should not have to use the term "symbolic meaning". It is redundant. But in this case, it seems I am forced to.)

p.s. And I see you are now talking about the symbolic meaning of the Bible and how prevelent it is. I do believe this is not what you were saying at the start of this discussion. Now the tune is -- THERE IS SYMBOLISIM IN THE BIBLE,, but not the symbolism you see or attribute to it. But that is not what you were saying first thing. I believe you said there was no symbolism in the Bible, the Bible was not about symbolism, no symbolism in the bible. That is what you said. So after all that, we are nowhere further along with the discussion, except that you don't like Blavatsky or her ideas.

[dedicate]

"I referred to Christian symbolism which is rather different. That is, symbolism as connected with Christianity as practiced today. Connected with Christianity in the here and now there is almost no symbolism at all, as it is a spirit religion. The body and blood of CHrist are symbolized by the elements but nothing else specifically. --

Really what you are saying is, any symbolism attributed to Christianity -- other than how you see it -- is pagan and apostacy.

So there we have it,, "No symbolism in Christianity". Jesus feeding the multitude fish and bread? Could have been any food. Could have added some honeycomb or figs in the story. Could have been milk and corn. No symbolism there folks. Move along. Firsh and Bread were the mederterranian diet. No meaning or symbol here. Nothing to see. And don't get started on the # of fishes and # of loaves or the # of the multitude, or the # of baskets left over. That could not be symbolic of anything -- Unless it refers to the old testament in some way.

But even it there were meaning there,, that was then and this is now. -- "Christianity in the Here and Now. I live in the here and now! and those symbols - if symbols -- don't apply to my practice!"

So I will say it again, this "Christian" is about defending her/his belief system. Not discussing reasonably the matter at hand, The Here and Now.

[uncia]

Thank you.. I asked if the prophets had mentioned something else other than hanging,, and Jesus was not crusified but murdered in some other way, would the meaning be the same? You answered, "No". Thank you. Thank you for giving me that much.

The reason being that unless Christ was hung from a tree he would not be cursed.


So, now we see there is meaning in the crusifixion beyond it fulfilling the letter of prophecy. At least we can see that. We might even be able to agree there is some symbolic meaning there.

The OT tells us that because of the way in which Christ died, he was actually cursed for our sins.


p.s. And I see you are now talking about the symbolic meaning of the Bible and how prevelent it is. I do believe this is not what you were saying at the start of this discussion. Now the tune is -- THERE IS SYMBOLISIM IN THE BIBLE,, but not the symbolism you see or attribute to it. But that is not what you were saying first thing. I believe you said there was no symbolism in the Bible, the Bible was not about symbolism, no symbolism in the bible. That is what you said. So after all that, we are nowhere further along with the discussion, except that you don't like Blavatsky or her ideas.
I said no symbolism in Christianity. The bible is more than about Christianity - it includes the history of the world up until Christ.

Actually there is more symbolism in Christianity that bread and wine. Of course there is water, used for baptism, and also the laying on of hands.

[uncia]

"I referred to Christian symbolism which is rather different. That is, symbolism as connected with Christianity as practiced today. Connected with Christianity in the here and now there is almost no symbolism at all, as it is a spirit religion. The body and blood of CHrist are symbolized by the elements but nothing else specifically. --

Really what you are saying is, any symbolism attributed to Christianity -- other than how you see it -- is pagan and apostacy.

Not necessarily apostasy - that is a very strong word - but evidence of weak faith. Those who promote symbols are doing it to make up for their lack of faith. The Protestant revolution in the 16th century, at least amongst the Puritans and other Calvinists and Anabaptists etc did away with the widespread use of symbols and graven images in connection with religion worship. The commandment against graven images still stands.



So there we have it,, "No symbolism in Christianity". Jesus feeding the multitude fish and bread? Could have been any food. Could have added some honeycomb or figs in the story. Could have been milk and corn. No symbolism there folks. Move along. Firsh and Bread were the Mediterranean diet. No meaning or symbol here. Nothing to see. And don't get started on the # of fishes and # of loaves or the # of the multitude, or the # of baskets left over. That could not be symbolic of anything -- Unless it refers to the old testament in some way.

Fish and bread was the staple diet of those times. Not much else to eat, except meat, and vegetables. But he was presented with fish and bread, so that is what he distributed.


But even it there were meaning there,, that was then and this is now. -- "Christianity in the Here and Now. I live in the here and now! and those symbols - if symbols -- don't apply to my practice!"

If one was an ardent finder of meanings, one could dream up all sorts of connections, and meanings in the bread and the fish. Actually Jesus himself described himself at the bread of heaven and bread (i.e. manna) was provided to the Israelites in the wilderness. So one could draw the obvious parallel between the spread of the word of God and the increase in the bread, but that is what preachers and teachers spend their lives doing.


So I will say it again, this "Christian" is about defending her/his belief system. Not discussing reasonably the matter at hand, The Here and Now.
What I am saying is that my belief system is largely devoid of symbols, but I am prepared to interpret the New Testament by the Old Testament, and see the Old Testament as the type, or presage of the New, which it most certainly is. The New Testament deals largely with spiritual matters: i.e. forgiveness, faith and sanctification and salvation. That is its primary purpose.

[miracles]

Not necessarily apostasy - that is a very strong word - but evidence of weak faith. Those who promote symbols are doing it to make up for their lack of faith. The Protestant revolution in the 16th century, at least amongst the Puritans and other Calvinists and Anabaptists etc did away with the widespread use of symbols and graven images in connection with religion worship. The commandment against graven images still stands.



Fish and bread was the staple diet of those times. Not much else to eat, except meat, and vegetables. But he was presented with fish and bread, so that is what he distributed.


If one was an ardent finder of meanings, one could dream up all sorts of connections, and meanings in the bread and the fish. Actually Jesus himself described himself at the bread of heaven and bread (i.e. manna) was provided to the Israelites in the wilderness. So one could draw the obvious parallel between the spread of the word of God and the increase in the bread, but that is what preachers and teachers spend their lives doing.


What I am saying is that my belief system is largely devoid of symbols, but I am prepared to interpret the New Testament by the Old Testament, and see the Old Testament as the type, or presage of the New, which it most certainly is. The New Testament deals largely with spiritual matters: i.e. forgiveness, faith and sanctification and salvation. That is its primary purpose.


Good one.

[dedicate]

Well that was interesting. Not sure if anything was accomplished, though. So far, I've really found nothing evil about anything Blavatsky has written. In fact, it seems, most of it is historically accurate and well documented. Don't see any problem with it, except that some people don't want to hear it.

Anyway, -- Blavatsky's work continued here:

We say again, we desire to give nothing on our sole authority. Therefore we cite Jacolliot, who, however criticised and contradicted on other points, and however loose he may be in the matter of chronology (though even in this he is nearer right than those scientists who would have all Hindu books written since the Council of Nicea), at least cannot be denied the reputation of a good Sanscrit scholar. And he says, while analyzing the word Oan, or Oannes, that O in Sanscrit is an interjection expressing an invocation, as O, Swayambhuva! O, God! etc.; and An is a radical, signifying in Sanscrit a spirit, a being; and, we presume, what the Greeks meant by the word Daemon, a semi-god.

"What an extraordinary antiquity," he remarks, "this fable of Vishnu, disguised as a fish, gives to the sacred books of the Hindus; especially in presence of the fact that the Vedas and Manu reckon more than twenty-five thousand years of existence, as proved by the most serious as the most authentic documents. Few peoples, says the learned Halled, have their annals more authentic or serious than the Hindus."

We may, perhaps, throw additional light upon the puzzling question of the fish-symbol by reminding the reader that according to Genesis the first created of living beings, the first type of animal life, was the fish. "And the Elohim said: 'Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life' . . . and God created great whales . . . and the morning and the evening were the fifth day." Jonah is swallowed by a big fish, and is cast out again three days later. This the Christians regard as a premonition of the three days' sepulture of Jesus which preceded his resurrection -- though the statement of the three days is as fanciful as much of the rest, and adopted to fit the well-known threat to destroy the temple and rebuild it again in three days. Between his burial and alleged resurrection there intervened but one day -- the Jewish Sabbath -- as he was buried on Friday evening and rose to life at dawn on Sunday. However, whatever other circumstance may be regarded as a prophecy, the story of Jonah cannot be made to answer the purpose.

[dedicate]

Blavatsky is still puzzled by the fish-symbol. Where does it originate? Did it emerge out of the abundance of Fish stories found in the New Testament? or is it to be attributed to a simple acrostic? Or the third day of creation? Jonas? I don't think she is impressed with any of these explanations. Not much said about Pisces either. What she does seem to emphisize is the Vishnu Fish Incarnation, Matsya.

She is not drawing any conclusion by noting this. Not yet. But she does find this important enough to devote more than a couple passages explaining this Fish/God incarnation. Vishnu is one of Three Supreme Deities worshiped by the Hindues. Vishnu is the preserver and protector of Creation. It is said that Vishnu will incarnate 10 times, I believe, during a 24,000 year period (a sidereal year). He has incarnated 9 times already. His last incarnation was Lord Buddha, over 2,500 years ago, and before that Lord Krishna over 5,000 years ago. Now would this place his 1st incarnation as some 24,000 years ago?

Is Blavatsky clueing us that this Christian fish-symbol could be a reference to a Hindu God? That Christianity has it's roots in culture and religion back over 20,000 thousand years to a Fish God? Or is there more to it? For example,, "The return of the Fish-God". That is, the fish symbol (Pisces), Christianity, will hail the 10th and final incarnation of Vishnu! I don't know, but she does lay much emphisis on this Mythology. More than anything else.


More later.

[uncia]

Blavatsky is still puzzled by the fish-symbol. Where does it originate? Did it emerge out of the abundance of Fish stories found in the New Testament? or is it to be attributed to a simple acrostic? Or the third day of creation? Jonas? I don't think she is impressed with any of these explanations. Not much said about Pisces either. What she does seem to emphisize is the Vishnu Fish Incarnation, Matsya.

She is not drawing any conclusion by noting this. Not yet. But she does find this important enough to devote more than a couple passages explaining this Fish/God incarnation. Vishnu is one of Three Supreme Deities worshiped by the Hindues. Vishnu is the preserver and protector of Creation. It is said that Vishnu will incarnate 10 times, I believe, during a 24,000 year period (a sidereal year). He has incarnated 9 times already. His last incarnation was Lord Buddha, over 2,500 years ago, and before that Lord Krishna over 5,000 years ago. Now would this place his 1st incarnation as some 24,000 years ago?

Is Blavatsky clueing us that this Christian fish-symbol could be a reference to a Hindu God? That Christianity has it's roots in culture and religion back over 20,000 thousand years to a Fish God? Or is there more to it? For example,, "The return of the Fish-God". That is, the fish symbol (Pisces), Christianity, will hail the 10th and final incarnation of Vishnu! I don't know, but she does lay much emphisis on this Mythology. More than anything else.


More later.
Hiinduism is ultimately a pagan idolatrous system, being on a par with the Greek and Roman pantheistic systems, which have long died out. It has nothing to do with Christianity. If you are going to search for fish symbols in all the religions of the world - I have an encyclopedia of all religions that tells me that fish worship, under the guise of the philistine god Dagon, was common in Egypt Syria and Greece and for that reason there was a practice of abstaining from eating fish.

But where does it get you? Plainly neither the Galileans nor the Jews worshipped fish.

[dedicate]

Actually Hinduism is not pagan. No reason to change the meaning of words to fit your world view. Just because a religion is non-Christian, does not mean it is Pagan. I believe pagan is another form of no-religion, or no-path, no-traditional form, etc.. it's (Paganism) is a neo-religion.

Seems to me, and my understanding is, pagans do what they want, what is right for them, and follow no tradition, but still they have the understanding of a Spirit life. That is not Hinduism.

Then, what I hope to accomplish is to clear Blavatsky's name, at least to some degree. To give her AND HER WORK the respect they deserve. The turn of the last century marked a turn in Civilization as a whole. We can see the good and the bad, but, it is undeniable, all things changed. Blavasky stood on the van-guard of this change -- for good and for bad -- of the world's view of religion. I believe she stood on the side of good as a person and in her work.

A similar example could be someone who in 1948 promoted the idea of a United Nations. The idea of Unity among Nations is not a bad one, and may even be a good thing to promote. It may have even been inevitable that an organization such as the UN be created. Why not make the best of it then? Try to set up an organization that is really about Peace and the People? Of course, that is not what happened, but just because someone gave a helping hand, does not mean they were bad or their ideas were evil. Seeeee?


P.S. I might also add that Hinduism is not always Idol-worshipping. There is a strong tradition in Hinduism based on the Upanishads, Braman, and Sanatas Dharma. This is similar to the Christian idea of Second Adam or Father in Heaven. Or Kabala's Ain Soph.-- Zen Buddhim, Tao. So we can see that all true religouns teach/find the same truths, but give them differing names.

P.S.S. I might also add, uncia, this rejection of Idol worshipping -- or use of symbols -- as you express it, falls on the bad side. Fine, if you don't want to put holy images on the walls,-- then don't. Perfectly fine and perfectly OK way of practiceing a true path. But to see anyone who does do these things as a "pagan idol-worshpper" or (what was the term you used?) "weak in their faith".. IS NOT THE WAY to build unity among people. They might be just expessing another valid form, a form you do not use. Thus Blavatsky's work,, the work of the Ages,, GoodWill among Men.

[uncia]

Actually Hinduism is not pagan. No reason to change the meaning of words to fit your world view. Just because a religion is non-Christian, does not mean it is Pagan. I believe pagan is another form of no-religion, or no-path, no-traditional form, etc.. it's (Paganism) is a neo-religion.

Seems to me, and my understanding is, pagans do what they want, what is right for them, and follow no tradition, but still they have the understanding of a Spirit life. That is not Hinduism.

Wikipedia, as always, has a good article on the meaning of the word. I was using in the context of Historical Polytheism deriving from the pre-Christian era, as to be firmly contra distinguished from neo-paganism, often abbreviated to 'paganism', of modern occultists.



Then, what I hope to accomplish is to clear Blavatsky's name, at least to some degree. To give her AND HER WORK the respect they deserve. The turn of the last century marked a turn in Civilization as a whole. We can see the good and the bad, but, it is undeniable, all things changed. Blavasky stood on the van-guard of this change -- for good and for bad -- of the world's view of religion. I believe she stood on the side of good as a person and in her work.

I accord Blavatsky no respect whatever. A book I respect is "The Faiths of the World - A Dictionary of all Religions and Religious Sects their Doctrines, Rites, Ceremonies and Customs by the Rev. James Gardner MA 1864" - it will definitely cost you these days I brought a version 15 years ago for £40 - which gives an impartial account of all the pagan gods and their religions without trying to slander Christianity in the process.


A similar example could be someone who in 1948 promoted the idea of a United Nations. The idea of Unity among Nations is not a bad one, and may even be a good thing to promote. It may have even been inevitable that an organization such as the UN be created. Why not make the best of it then? Try to set up an organization that is really about Peace and the People? Of course, that is not what happened, but just because someone gave a helping hand, does not mean they were bad or their ideas were evil. Seeeee?

There is no one world religion. There is true religion and false religion. If its not true its false. There is only one true religion, the worship of the true God. If a religion does not condemn idolatry outright it is false - this includes Buddhism and Hinduism.


P.S. I might also add that Hinduism is not always Idol-worshipping. There is a strong tradition in Hinduism based on the Upanishads, Braman, and Sanatas Dharma. This is similar to the Christian idea of Second Adam or Father in Heaven. Or Kabala's Ain Soph.-- Zen Buddhim, Tao. So we can see that all true religouns teach/find the same truths, but give them differing names.

P.S.S. I might also add, uncia, this rejection of Idol worshipping -- or use of symbols -- as you express it, falls on the bad side. Fine, if you don't want to put holy images on the walls,-- then don't. Perfectly fine and perfectly OK way of practiceing a true path. But to see anyone who does do these things as a "pagan idol-worshpper" or (what was the term you used?) "weak in their faith".. IS NOT THE WAY to build unity among people. They might be just expessing another valid form, a form you do not use. Thus Blavatsky's work,, the work of the Ages,, GoodWill among Men.
No. Thou shalt not have anything to do with idolaters or those who promote idol worship. The message of the bible is to separate from them:

Exd 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness [of any thing] that [is] in heaven above, or that [is] in the earth beneath, or that [is] in the water under the earth:

Lev 26:1 Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up [any] image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I [am] the LORD your God.

Deu 4:16 Lest ye corrupt [yourselves], and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female,

Deu 4:23 Take heed unto yourselves, lest ye forget the covenant of the LORD your God, which he made with you, and make you a graven image, [or] the likeness of any [thing], which the LORD thy God hath forbidden thee.

Deu 4:25 When thou shalt beget children, and children's children, and ye shall have remained long in the land, and shall corrupt [yourselves], and make a graven image, [or] the likeness of any [thing], and shall do evil in the sight of the LORD thy God, to provoke him to anger:

Deu 5:8 Thou shalt not make thee [any] graven image, [or] any likeness [of any thing] that [is] in heaven above, or that [is] in the earth beneath, or that [is] in the waters beneath the earth:

Deu 27:15 Cursed [be] the man that maketh [any] graven or molten image, an abomination unto the LORD, the work of the hands of the craftsman, and putteth [it] in [a] secret [place]. And all the people shall answer and say, Amen.

[dedicate]

Obviously! You have no respect for any other Religious tradition what-so-ever. As you have demonstrated in just this one post by heaping injury onto just about every one of them! And even other Christian religions I heard you refer to as "weak" and "heratical"! I shudder at what you must think of our poor Islamist brothers suffering the injustices of a so-called just nation! Your kind of respect I don't want.

I hope that I am your anti-christ devil. I really do. I pray to God Almighty that I may be just that to you.-- it being his will of course. What ever it is that you believe and practice,, and I'm getting an idea of what that might be -- I pray to God that I practice the opposite "contra distingushed" form.-- it being His Will and Mercy, may it be done.

[uncia]

Obviously! You have no respect for any other Religious tradition what-so-ever. As you have demonstrated in just this one post by heaping injury onto just about every one of them! And even other Christian religions I heard you refer to as "weak" and "heratical"! I shudder at what you must think of our poor Islamist brothers suffering the injustices of a so-called just nation! Your kind of respect I don't want.

I hope that I am your anti-christ devil. I really do. I pray to God Almighty that I may be just that to you.-- it being his will of course. What ever it is that you believe and practice,, and I'm getting an idea of what that might be -- I pray to God that I practice the opposite "contra distingushed" form.-- it being His Will and Mercy, may it be done.
That's right. No respect for idolaters, liars, or any other garbage practiced in the name of religion.

[dedicate]

"Big Fish" is Cetus, the latinized form of Keto -- [[Ketos]] and keto is Dagon, Poseidon, the female gender of it being Keton Atar-gatis -- the Syrian goddess, and Venus, of Askalon. The figure or bust of Der-Keto or Astarte was generally represented on the prow of the ships. Jonah (the Greek Iona, or dove sacred to Venus) fled to Jaffa, where the god Dagon, the man-fish, was worshipped, and dared not go to Nineveh, where the dove was revered. Hence, some commentators believe that when Jonah was thrown overboard and was swallowed by a fish, we must understand that he was picked up by one of these vessels, on the prow of which was the figure of Keto. But the kabalists have another legend, to this effect: They say that Jonah was a run-away priest from the temple of the goddess where the dove was worshipped, and desired to abolish idolatry and institute monotheistic worship. That, caught near Jaffa, he was held prisoner by the devotees of Dagon in one of the prison-cells of the temple, and that it is the strange form of the cell which gave rise to the allegory. In the collection of Mose de Garcia, a Portuguese kabalist, there is a drawing representing the interior of the temple of Dagon. In the middle stands an immense idol, the upper portion of whose body is human, and the lower fish-like. Between the belly and the tail is an aperture which can be closed like the door of a closet. In it the transgressors against the local deity were shut up until further disposal. The drawing in question was made from an old tablet covered with curious drawings and inscriptions in old Phoenician characters, describing this Venetian oubliette of biblical days. The tablet itself was found in an excavation a few miles from Jaffa. Considering the extraordinary tendency of Oriental nations for puns and allegories, is it not barely possible that the "big fish" by which Jonah was swallowed was simply the cell within the belly of Dagon?

It is significant that this double appellation of "Messiah" and "Dag" (fish), of the Talmudists, should so well apply to the Hindu Vishnu, the "Preserving" Spirit, and the second personage of the Brahmanic trinity. This deity, having already manifested itself, is still regarded as the future Saviour of humanity, and is the selected Redeemer, who will appear at its tenth incarnation or avatar, like the Messiah of the Jews, to lead the blessed onward, and restore to them the primitive Vedas. At his first avatar, Vishnu is alleged to have appeared to humanity, in form like a fish. In the temple of Rama, there is a representation of this god which answers perfectly to that of Dagon, as given by Berosus. He has the body of a man issuing from the mouth of a fish, and holds in his hands the lost Veda. Vishnu, moreover, is the water-god, in one sense, the Logos of the Parabrahm, for as the three persons of the manifested god-head constantly interchange their attributes, we see him in the same temple represented as reclining on the seven-headed serpent, Ananta (eternity), and moving, like the Spirit of God, on the face of the primeval waters.

Some thoughts later --

[miracles]

Obviously! You have no respect for any other Religious tradition what-so-ever. As you have demonstrated in just this one post by heaping injury onto just about every one of them! And even other Christian religions I heard you refer to as "weak" and "heratical"! I shudder at what you must think of our poor Islamist brothers suffering the injustices of a so-called just nation! Your kind of respect I don't want.

I hope that I am your anti-christ devil. I really do. I pray to God Almighty that I may be just that to you.-- it being his will of course. What ever it is that you believe and practice,, and I'm getting an idea of what that might be -- I pray to God that I practice the opposite "contra distingushed" form.-- it being His Will and Mercy, may it be done.

You are aware that Christian soldiers are being ostracised by the media for giving out bibles in Iraq arent you? And that rule number one (by the so called just nation) is not to prozelitize. IE preach the gospel to muslims? A just Christian Nation (which it claims to be) would not have a rule like this, let alone rule number one. These soldiers are now in deep shit with their own Government, and it's the media that dobbed them in. And it's the media who are exerting pressure on the Government to enforce the rule.

Please.

[shaivite]

You are aware that Christian soldiers are being ostracised by the media for giving out bibles in Iraq arent you? And that rule number one (by the so called just nation) is not to prozelitize. IE preach the gospel to muslims? A just Christian Nation (which it claims to be) would not have a rule like this, let alone rule number one. These soldiers are now in deep shit with their own Government, and it's the media that dobbed them in. And it's the media who are exerting pressure on the Government to enforce the rule.

Please.

To me such thinking beggers belief! People don't want to hear proselytizing at the best of times, let alone during the worst! Why can't many Christians understand this simple matter? Why can't they understand that the manner in which they do this only serves to cause aggrivation and hostility, be it in war zones, on the street, or in internet forums? How would you feel if a Muslim nation invaded your country and during its occupation tried to convert you to Islam? There isn't much I agree with when it comes to the US military and US international policy, but this principle makes sense.

[uncia]

To me such thinking beggers belief! People don't want to hear proselytizing at the best of times, let alone during the worst! Why can't many Christians understand this simple matter? Why can't they understand that the manner in which they do this only serves to cause aggrivation and hostility, be it in war zones, on the street, or in internet forums? How would you feel if a Muslim nation invaded your country and during its occupation tried to convert you to Islam? There isn't much I agree with when it comes to the US military and US international policy, but this principle makes sense.
Christians thrive on aggravation and hostility, because its then that they know that they are kicking Satan and his followers where it hurts. In any case, Christians have a divine right to evangelize the world, so you'd better get used to the idea.

[miracles]

To me such thinking beggers belief! People don't want to hear proselytizing at the best of times, let alone during the worst! Why can't many Christians understand this simple matter? Why can't they understand that the manner in which they do this only serves to cause aggrivation and hostility, be it in war zones, on the street, or in internet forums? How would you feel if a Muslim nation invaded your country and during its occupation tried to convert you to Islam? There isn't much I agree with when it comes to the US military and US international policy, but this principle makes sense.

I know, I know Christians should be banned from every where, we are the scourge of the world right. I got it.

I dont neccessarily agree with a Christian soldier breaking the law of their Government. I can also see how it can be viewed as culturally incensitive. Maybe if they where raping and piliaging it would be more acceptable.

What it does show me is who they really serve. And I am encouraged by that fact. I think they are very brave. They are obviously men and women of strong conviction. When you really believe in something even fear of death can not stop you or fear of being coutmarshalled and jailed. They arent freaken running around with explosives blowing up the infidel. Keep it in perspective, they are sharing their faith. Nothing more sinister than that. Are you aware that their bibles are being confiscated and burned by their own superiors. Yes bring it on mine fuhrer.

There are no Christian nations in this world, especially America. There are Christian people though, and they care about the spiritual and eternal well being of their fellow man. We havent heard the last of this story, mark my words on that. Remember it is individual human beings who are doing this in Iraq (ie distributing bibles), not the American Government or the American army. To stop them would be like your boss telling you not to share your beliefs or faith with fellow muslim workers in the office, thats rule number one. They are breaking it. God bless them. They arent being muzzled. YET! These bibles are being supplied and funded by individual members or churches, not the army or the government, These bibles have been painstakingly translated in to two seperate local dialects, the army are burning them.This is spiritual warfare on the frontlines.

Meanwhile - in here, well its just a bunch of people blowing hot air and filling in time.

[miracles]

Christians thrive on aggravation and hostility, because its then that they know that they are kicking Satan and his followers where it hurts. In any case, Christians have a divine right to evangelize the world, so you'd better get used to the idea.

Speak for yourself pal. I do not thrive of agro and hostility, neither did Christ. Are you out of you mind? We are to go in peace and dust of our shoes and leave peacefully if we are not welcome.

Im here as a human being invloved in religious debate, my faith is actually secondary to that. If David Icke came down from on High and said Christians are not welcome here. I would leave.

[shaivite]

Speak for yourself pal. I do not thrive of agro and hostility, neither did Christ. Are you out of you mind? We are to go in peace and dust of our shoes and leave peacefully if we are not welcome.

Im here as a human being invloved in religious debate, my faith is actually secondary to that. If David Icke came down from on High and said Christians are not welcome here. I would leave.

This kind of mindset and perspective I can appreciate, hold dialogue with, and in doing so hopefully maybe even learn something worthwhile in the process. It is refreshing to see a Christian in an online forum that promotes the value of peace and intelligent exchange. :)

[miracles]

This kind of mindset and perspective I can appreciate, hold dialogue with, and in doing so hopefully maybe even learn something worthwhile in the process. It is refreshing to see a Christian in an online forum that promotes the value of peace and intelligent exchange. :)

:) That made my decade!

[uncia]

Speak for yourself pal. I do not thrive of agro and hostility, neither did Christ. Are you out of you mind? We are to go in peace and dust of our shoes and leave peacefully if we are not welcome.

You are perceiving only half the truth. Jesus had a life long battle with the Pharisees, who were always seeking to destroy him. Paul had a life long battle with the charlatan Jews. Protestants had a life long battle from the Roman Catholic system.


Im here as a human being invloved in religious debate, my faith is actually secondary to that. If David Icke came down from on High and said Christians are not welcome here. I would leave.
Why? Are you afraid of being banned? Afraid of men? I've been kicked off more so-called Christian forums than any other. If I was in government, I'd string up pagans from the lamp posts for their wicked deeds, and charlatan christians too.

[miracles]

You are perceiving only half the truth. Jesus had a life long battle with the Pharisees, who were always seeking to destroy him. Paul had a life long battle with the charlatan Jews. Protestants had a life long battle from the Roman Catholic system.


Why? Are you afraid of being banned? Afraid of men? I've been kicked off more so-called Christian forums than any other. If I was in government, I'd string up pagans from the lamp posts for their wicked deeds, and charlatan christians too.

Excellent! I like your style - :D

Ive had my fare share of bannings, actually I think Im on my last legs on this site at the moment to be fair. Im hanging on by the skinn of my teeth. It took me quite a long time to figure out how not to get band. Im not that clever you see.

[shaivite]

If I was in government, I'd string up pagans from the lamp posts for their wicked deeds, and charlatan christians too.

Why are your words so constantly full of hate and aggression?

You aren't here to welcome people to Christ you are just here to attack people!

Understand this - you are being a very poor representative of Christ and Christianity. You turn people away from Christ than towards him.

I even wonder if you really are a Chrisitian, as you do them and Christ such a disgusting and putrid disservice. Could it be you aren't what you say, could you be a troll? Your name alone, "Uncia", makes me wonder as this was the name of a Roman coin.

[miracles]

Why are your words so constantly full of hate and aggression?

You aren't here to welcome people to Christ you are just here to attack people!

Understand this - you are being a very poor representative of Christ and Christianity. You turn people away from Christ than towards him.

I even wonder if you really are a Chrisitian, as you do them and Christ such a disgusting and putrid disservice. Could it be you aren't what you say, could you be a troll? Your name alone, "Uncia", makes me wonder as this was the name of a Roman coin.

Dont let the words or actions of any man turn you away from Christ dude. :) Uncia is definately a wind up merchant, I mean the guy admits being banned from christian sites LOL.

[dedicate]

No, I didn't know anything about this issue of Bibles and Irak. Seems like another media exploitation of our weaknesses.


I don't know what handing out Bibles or not handing out Bibles in Irac has to do with anything that was said,, but Seems to me, I hear "media" and "U.S.military", as the sourse of the information, then I do more then question it,, I consider the information disingenuine. For example, The Military could be setting up the entire controversy. They could be giving "special ops" units instructions to distribute Bibles and do the kind of Christian evangelism like we see Uncia doing here (maybe Uncia is one of those special ops members on the homefront).-- but deny the orders. Then the media goes along, and is told from it's superiors to make a big deal out of the strory and find Irakies who are upset by the practice or who have bad experiences. Then we on the home front are divided and thus conquered by issue! Also, those soldiers who really can bring the Christian message to Muslim are stiffled even further.-- even stopped from talking about it. So the enemy here is the same enemy it has been all along, the conspiritors who will use both sides, confuse things for everybody, but push their plans forward while we fight amongst ourselves.

What this has to do with anything I said about Muslims previously, I don't know.

[dedicate]

Blavatsky -- she is letting the Christian or even Western Mind in on something not often told to them in chruches or Sunday school. She is answering the question, "Where did all this come from?" She shows, The Christian Religion as originating in a culture that was 1,000's of years old and surrounded by Greeks, Romans, Sumarians, Egyptians.-- all speaking different languages, all having different histories. She's not saying, as far as I can tell, that the Christian Religion is an almagomation of those times and cultures, nor that the Creation of the Religion depended or was influenced by those cultures. But the culture of the 1st Century BC Hebrew was! The story and message of Christianity was part of those times.

For the most part, what was known by the Kabalist, Egyptians, Hitites, Syrans, Babylonians, have been either buried or kept from us. So, the people have been kept from knowing what they knew.. the people who wrote and lived the Bible!. Thus, the modern Christian can look upon those ancient cultures not knowing anything about them? -- ie,, Jonas was thown into an actual whale's belly! But to the 1st Century BC Hebrew reading the story was it obvious Jonas was thrown into a Dagon prison?

Blavatsky has in no way been promoting One Religion out of the All. Getting all people to practice the same religion is the work of the modern Christian, and Islamist Fundamentalist, not the Theosophist.!

What we are bridging with Theosophy is understanding of other Religions and other Cultures. With understanding comes tolorance, respect, and hopefully celebration. Even if these other religions are incorrect, and I'm not saying they are or are not, we can tolerate them -- respect their right to be wrong.

Key to the discussion so far is the idea of the future salvation of the entire world/earth,, in the form of AVATARA or Messiah. Both Christian and Hinduism point to a time when their Supreme Deity will return to Earth and wipe out the bad, restore the true Teachings (Vedas in Hindu and "Iron Rod" in Chrisianity).. Both at the End of this AGe. Both as the Final and supreme most climax (!!) to human history, at a time when all seems lost? Both, it seems, are about due. The similarities are there! I think this is the direction Blavatsky is taking it.

[miracles]

No, I didn't know anything about this issue of Bibles and Irak. Seems like another media exploitation of our weaknesses.


I don't know what handing out Bibles or not handing out Bibles in Irac has to do with anything that was said,, but Seems to me, I hear "media" and "U.S.military", as the sourse of the information, then I do more then question it,, I consider the information disingenuine. For example, The Military could be setting up the entire controversy. They could be giving "special ops" units instructions to distribute Bibles and do the kind of Christian evangelism like we see Uncia doing here.-- but deny it was due to orders. Then the media goes along and is told from it's superiors to make a big deal out of the strory and find Irakies who are upset by the practice or who have bad experiences. Then we on the home front are divided and thus conquered by issue! Also, those soldiers who really can bring the Christian message to Muslem are stiffled even further.-- even stopped from talking about it. So the enemy here is the same enemy it has been all along, the people who will use both sides, confuse things for everybody, but push their plans forward while we fight about this.

What this has to do with anything I said about Muslims, I don't know.

Fair comment.

[uncia]

Why are your words so constantly full of hate and aggression?

You aren't here to welcome people to Christ you are just here to attack people!

Understand this - you are being a very poor representative of Christ and Christianity. You turn people away from Christ than towards him.

I even wonder if you really are a Chrisitian, as you do them and Christ such a disgusting and putrid disservice. Could it be you aren't what you say, could you be a troll? Your name alone, "Uncia", makes me wonder as this was the name of a Roman coin.
Uncia Uncia is the name of the Snow Leopard, amongst other things, which lives in the mountains remote from man.

I don't care what you say because you have only ever used this thread to attack me personally. In fact, you are abusing this forum. Clearly you are a virulent anti-Christian, as are all theosophists, which is the religion of anti Christ.

[shaivite]

Uncia Uncia is the name of the Snow Leopard, amongst other things, which lives in the mountains remote from man.


True, but "Uncia" is also the name of a Roman coin and a Roman measurement of length.


I don't care what you say because you have only ever used this thread to attack me personally. In fact, you are abusing this forum.


Incorrect sir. Did I not discuss in this thread the time I spent with the TS? Did I not tell about their weekly meetings and the time I spent at their HQ in Chennai, India? You want to talk about absuing a fourm, what about all your words that condemn and promote hate and violence?

Understand I am not attacking you per se rather I am challenging the words and notions you put forth. I take issue with them not you yourself. It is a subtle difference, but an important one. But with the words that you post in this forum what do you expect? You preach such negativity and hate, such opposition and distaste, you even promote killing, to anything but your narrow view, do you not think that people aren't going to stand up against such barbaric spewings that sound like they have came right out of the dark ages? I made legitimate and accurate points about what you say on this forum. Perhaps you would find it of benefit to reflect upon them.


Clearly you are a virulent anti-Christian, as are all theosophists, which is the religion of anti Christ.

Firstly, I'm not a Theosophist. That point has already previously been made very clear. Secondly, although I'm not a Christian, I most certainly am not anti-Christian. As I've mentioned (I think it was in this thread) I even have a San Damiano Cross, the cross associated with Saint Francis of Assisi, hanging in my hallway. Was it in this thread that I also recommend the book 'The Imitation of Christ' to Christians and non-Christians alike? Did I not just say to another Christian member that I appreciated their perspective and felt I could learn something from discussion with them. Would somebody who is a "virulent anti-Christian" says that? No, of course not. So I think my words clearly show I'm not anti-Christian.

What could perhaps be said is that I'm against the kind of intolerance, slander, hate towards others that you push and against your misrepresentation of Christ and Christians that you seem hell bent on promoting. If anything the ironic situation is that a non-Christian is doing a better job representing and defending Christ and Christianity against someone who says they are a Christian!

[dedicate]

Vishnu is evidently the Adam Kadmon of the kabalists, for Adam is the Logos or the first Anointed, as Adam Second is the King Messiah.

Lakmy, or Lakshmi, the passive or feminine counterpart of Vishnu, the creator and the preserver, is also called Ada Maya. She is the "Mother of the World," Damatri, the Venus Aphrodite of the Greeks: also Isis and Eve. While Venus is born from the sea-foam, Lakmy springs out from the water at the churning of the sea; when born, she is so beautiful that all the gods fall in love with her. The Jews, borrowing their types wherever they could get them, made their first woman after the pattern of Lakmy. It is curious that Viracocha, the Supreme Being in Peru, means, literally translated, "foam of the sea."

Eugene Burnouf, the great authority of the French school, announces his opinion in the same spirit: "We must learn one day," he observes, "that all ancient traditions disfigured by emigration and legend, belong to the history of India." Such is the opinion of Colebrooke, Inman, King, Jacolliot, and many other Orientalists.

We have said above, that, according to the secret computation peculiar to the students of the hidden science, Messiah is the fifth emanation, or potency. In the Jewish Kabala, where the ten Sephiroth emanate from Adam Kadmon (placed below the crown), he comes fifth. So in the Gnostic system; so in the Buddhistic, in which the fifth Buddha -- Maitree, will appear at his last advent to save mankind before the final destruction of the world. If Vishnu is represented in his forthcoming and last appearance as the tenth avatar or incarnation, it is only because every unit held as an androgyne manifests itself doubly. The Buddhists who reject this dual-sexed incarnation reckon but five. Thus, while Vishnu is to make his last appearance in his tenth, Buddha is said to do the same in his fifth incarnation.*

Some thoughts later ---

[dedicate]

We have another Future saviour in the form of the Fifth Buddha, Maitraia. Apparently this Avatara is due at a time close to the end of the Age, similar to the other two Avataras mentioned in the Christian and Hindu traditions.

Water, the cosmic ocean, from which all things have existance. 5,000 years ago the future Kalki was told of, then Buddhist told of their returning "restorer of the Dharma", and the book of Revelation tells us of a firey judgement delivered at the hands of the returning Messiah. Could it be there will not be three incarnations, but all three are the same? Is this what Blavatsky is pointing to when saying, "Vishnu is evidently the Adam Kadmon of the kabalists, for Adam is the Logos or the first Anointed, as Adam Second is the King Messiah."?

She is saying, "All truth and knowledge comes from the same ocean"? "Nothing new under the Sun!".... Differing cultures have differing names and mythologies, but point to the same truths? A Hindu will pluck a fish and call it "Grabouli", An Asian will pluck out the same fish and call it "Sitorium", while we call them "Tuna". And there is probably more to it.

[uncia]

As I understand it, all polytheistic systems originated in Babylon. All polytheistic systems are pretty similar. Mother of the World derives from Semiramis and Nimrod, and the cult of the goddess Ishtar then started. What does Blavastsky have to say about her role as Ishtar?

[1977]

As I understand it, all polytheistic systems originated in Babylon. All polytheistic systems are pretty similar. Mother of the World derives from Semiramis and Nimrod, and the cult of the goddess Ishtar then started. What does Blavastsky have to say about her role as Ishtar?
Your understanding is wrong. Before Ishtar, there was Inanna in ancient Sumer—thousands of years before Semiramis.

[thirdwave]

Anyone like this is never as bad as the obvious types make them out to be... especially back in her day, if you knocked religion you were looked down on and seen as evil...

the thing is with these people, because of their spiritual stance and rejection of the organised religions, she is judged on how perfect she was or was not... hence the slightest fault in her personality (which proves nothing more than her being human) and it is used to express how much of a Satanist or anti Christ she is.. We still see this today, on this forum.

The stuff I have read of hers was cool.. although not allot as yet... she was basically what people would call today as a new ager... which is quite amusing when you think about it and how people label and point the finger at the new age agenda today..

[uncia]

Your understanding is wrong. Before Ishtar, there was Inanna in ancient Sumer—thousands of years before Semiramis.
I understand that Inanna was the Sumerian counterpart of Ishtar. The Semiramis (Sammuramat) I refer to is the wife of Nimrod, not a much later historical Assyrian queen, who bears some comparison to the original Semiramis.

[dedicate]

Blavatsky said, "Mother of the World and Ishtar" are the same. Also called "Queen of Heaven" in the Bible. All the same thing. Within the Greek pantheon Aphrodite or Venus may be similar to Ishatar. I just came back from a site that gave this information. But Ishtar is not the Virgin Mary aka Fatima, Marion apparitions. May not be Gaia either. In Hundu mythology, which predates -- supposidly -- Babylonian and Egyptian mythology, we would find ALL of these as manefestations of Divine Mother.-- The Infinite Goddess, The Feminine/Passive/Receptive Creative Principle of the Universe, Yin.

The way the question is posed, "What does Blavastsky have to say about her role as Ishtar". Implies that Blavastsky is Ishtar.? But that is not the question is it.

[dedicate]

The better to illustrate the idea, and show how completely the real meaning of the avatars, known only to the students of the secret doctrine was misunderstood by the ignorant masses, we elsewhere give the diagrams of the Hindu and Chaldeo-Kabalistic avatars and emanations.** This basic and true fundamental stone of the secret cycles, shows on its very face, that far from taking their revealed Vedas and Bible literally, the Brahman-pundits, and the Tanaim -- the scientists and philosophers of the pre-Christian epochs -- speculated on the creation and development of the world quite in a Darwinian way, both anticipating him and his school in the natural selection of species, gradual development, and transformation.

We advise every one tempted to enter an indignant protest against this affirmation to read more carefully the books of Manu, even in the incomplete translation of Sir William Jones, and the more or less careless one of Jacolliot. If we compare the Sanchoniathon Phoenician Cosmogony, and the record of Berosus with the Bhagavatta and Manu, we will find enunciated exactly the same principles as those now offered as the latest developments of modern science. We have quoted from the Chaldean and Phoenician records in our first volume; we will now glance at the Hindu books.

[1977]

I understand that Inanna was the Sumerian counterpart of Ishtar. The Semiramis (Sammuramat) I refer to is the wife of Nimrod, not a much later historical Assyrian queen, who bears some comparison to the original Semiramis.
The semi-mythical Ninus and Semiramis of Diodorus Siculus was ca. 2189 BC, which would still place it too soon, as Inanna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inanna), it seems, goes as far back as the Uruk Period (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruk_period) (ca. 4000 to 3100 BC). Hislop came up with his theories in the 19th century, before anyone even knew anything about Sumer. Goddess figures have even been found at Çatalhöyük (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalhuyuk) (7500-5700 BC)—or was this "pre-Adamic"?

[dedicate]

The diagrams mentioned can be found here: http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/isis/iu2-06.htm There is a function that enables the user of this forum to insert images, diagrams, illustrations, etc.. If another user could do this, or let me know how it is done, then that would be helpful in this case and in the future.


Here we find Blavatsky stating Science supports the ideas always known about by the Sages (like the ability to send thoughts over long distances to a well perfomed receiver,, as shown in modern inventions like the radio). Herein she is saying, Science has discovered the truth of evolution. Now, she doesn't get into it much, but science idea of evolution is not the esoteric understanding of evolution. Couple of quick comments:

1) Religion denotes the evolution of the spirit. Darwin explains evolution of form.
2) Theosophy states that Matter is a result of Spirit and Mind. Science will tell us that Spirit and Mind is the result of Matter.

There are others. But we see that science has found the truth at least to some degree. The order of the Universe is for all things to move onward through time to higher and higher states of being, knowing, living.-- this is evolution. Minor differences between the scientific and religious view,, but similar enough to where we can see how science (truth) compliments the eternal trutha we are truely looking for.


Blavatsky Continued ------------

When this world had issued out of darkness, the subtile elementary principles produced the vegetal seed which animated first the plants; from the plants, life passed into fantastical bodies which were born in the ilus of the waters; then, through a series of forms and various animals, it reached MAN."***

"He (man, before becoming such) will pass successively through plants, worms, insects, fish, serpents, tortoises, cattle, and wild animals; such is the inferior degree."

"Such, from Brahma down to the vegetables, are declared the transmigrations which take place in this world."****

In the Sanchoniathonian Cosmogony, men are also evolved out of the ilus of the chaos,* and the same evolution and transformation of species are shown.

And now we will leave the rostrum to Mr. Darwin: "I believe that animals have descended from at most only four or five progenitors."**

Again: "I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth, have descended from some one primordial form.*** . . . I view all beings, not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings which lived long before the first bed of the Silurian system was deposited."****

In short, they lived in the Sanchoniathonian chaos, and in the ilus of Manu. Vyasa and Kapila go still farther than Darwin and Manu. "They see in Brahma but the name of the universal germ; they deny the existence of a First Cause; and pretend that everything in nature found itself developed only in consequence of material and fatal forces," says Jacolliot.*****

[dedicate]

Correct as may be this latter quotation from Kapila, it demands a few words of explanation. Jacolliot repeatedly compares Kapila and Veda Vyasa with Pyrrho and Littre. We have nothing against such a comparison with the Greek philosopher, but we must decidedly object to any with the French Comtist; we find it an unmerited fling at the memory of the great Aryan sage. Nowhere does this prolific writer state the repudiation by either ancient or modern Brahmans of God -- the "unknown," universal Spirit; nor does any other Orientalist accuse the Hindus of the same, however perverted the general deductions of our savants about Buddhistic atheism. On the contrary, Jacolliot states more than once that the learned Pundits and educated Brahmans have never shared the popular superstitions; and affirms their unshaken belief in the unity of God and the soul's immortality, although most assuredly neither Kapila, nor the initiated Brahmans, nor the followers of the Vedanta school would ever admit the existence of an anthropomorphic creator, a "First Cause" in the Christian sense. Jacolliot, in his Indo-European and African Traditions, is the first to make an onslaught on Professor Muller, for remarking that the Hindu gods were "masks without actors . . . names without being, and not beings without names" Quoting, in support of his argument, numerous verses from the sacred Hindu books, he adds: "Is it possible to refuse to the author of these stanzas a definite and clear conception of the divine force, of the Unique Being, master and Sovereign of the Universe? . . . Were the altars then built to a metaphor?"

The latter argument is perfectly just, so far as Max Muller's negation is concerned. But we doubt whether the French rationalist understands Kapila's and Vyasa's philosophy better than the German philologist does the "theological twaddle," as the latter terms the Atharva-Veda. Professor Muller and Jacolliot may have ever so great claims to erudition, and be ever so familiar with Sanscrit and other ancient Oriental languages, but both lack the key to the thousand and one mysteries of the old secret doctrine and its philosophy. Only, while the German philologist does not even take the trouble to look into this magical and "theological twaddle," we find the French Indianis never losing an opportunity to investigate. Moreover, he honestly admits his incompetency to ever fathom this ocean of mystical learning. In its existence he not only firmly believes, but throughout his works he incessantly calls the attention of science to its unmistakable traces at every step in India. Still, though the learned Pundits and Brahmans -- his "revered masters" of the pagodas of Villenoor and Chelambrum in the Carnatic, as it seems, positively refused to reveal to him the mysteries of the magical part of the Agrouchada-Parikshai, and of Brahmatma's triangle, he persists in the honest declaration that everything is possible in Hindu metaphysics, even to the Kapila and Vyasa systems having been hitherto misunderstood.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are we finding here all systems and people working for and finding the truth of life,, are indeed brothers, united by the same father, fed by the same forces, finding the same meaning? Not only do we find this true within various religious traditions, but here Blavatsky is illustrating Science too is Religion's brother? A much needed message just before the turn of the last Century? Blavatsky's work -- a response to a spiritual impulse, pushing society and people onward into a much needed understanding of the discoveries and invention soon to follow?

More later

[dedicate]

"We were one day inquiring of a Brahman of the pagoda of Chelambrum, who belonged to the skeptical school of the naturalists of Vyasa, whether he believed in the existence of God. He answered us, smiling: 'Aham eva param Brahma' -- I am myself a god.

" 'What do you mean by that?'

" 'I mean that every being on earth, however humble, is an immortal portion of the immortal matter.'

The answer is one which would suggest itself to every ancient philosopher, Kabalist and Gnostic, of the early days. It contains the very spirit of the delphic and kabalistic commandment, for esoteric philosophy solved, ages ago, the problem of what man was, is, and will be. If persons believing the Bible verse which teaches that the "Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life," reject at the same time the idea that every atom of this dust, as every particle of this "living soul," contains "God" within itself, then we pity the logic of that Christian. He forgets the verses which precede the one in question. God blesses equally every beast of the field and every living creature, in the water as in the air, and He endows them all with life, which is a breath of His own Spirit, and the soul of the animal. Humanity is the Adam Kadmon of the "Unknown," His microcosm, and His only representative on earth, and every man is a god on earth.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not only has Theosophy given us, so far, the understanding of Religious/Spiritual truths being found within all Cultures and Faiths down through the Millenia. Here we find the truth pointed out, often shunned and degraded even to this day. This is: To find God, all one needs do is find oneself.

Often times "New Agers" are labeled people who believe they themselves are God. I've often wondered why these preachers and fundamentalist who say this, never ask the believer what they mean by this in order to clarify the opinion. Wouldn't each person being God,, mean that there are 5 Gods in a group of 5 people? And if God means One, all Powerful, -- then having 5 of them negate the Power of at least 4? So, logically, the belief is wrong or the understanding held by the critic is wrong. Seems to me the Fundamentalist quickly chooses without asking, and goes on demonizing the "New Age" without much fuss.

Sort of like when the preacher will dismiss Islam by pointing out "There is only one faith like Christianity" and go on to say "See! The others all have graves for their Saviours. Jesus has no grave". So I should discount Islam because Mohammed was placed in grave?

[brio313]

Blavatsky is still puzzled by the fish-symbol. Where does it originate? Did it emerge out of the abundance of Fish stories found in the New Testament? or is it to be attributed to a simple acrostic? Or the third day of creation? Jonas? I don't think she is impressed with any of these explanations. Not much said about Pisces either. What she does seem to emphisize is the Vishnu Fish Incarnation, Matsya.

She is not drawing any conclusion by noting this. Not yet. But she does find this important enough to devote more than a couple passages explaining this Fish/God incarnation. Vishnu is one of Three Supreme Deities worshiped by the Hindues. Vishnu is the preserver and protector of Creation. It is said that Vishnu will incarnate 10 times, I believe, during a 24,000 year period (a sidereal year). He has incarnated 9 times already. His last incarnation was Lord Buddha, over 2,500 years ago, and before that Lord Krishna over 5,000 years ago. Now would this place his 1st incarnation as some 24,000 years ago?

Is Blavatsky clueing us that this Christian fish-symbol could be a reference to a Hindu God? That Christianity has it's roots in culture and religion back over 20,000 thousand years to a Fish God? Or is there more to it? For example,, "The return of the Fish-God". That is, the fish symbol (Pisces), Christianity, will hail the 10th and final incarnation of Vishnu! I don't know, but she does lay much emphisis on this Mythology. More than anything else.


More later.

Excellent thread Dedicate!

I have always liked your way of thinking. (even if i'm only a lightweighter in the form of a little child in proportion)

Shavite has also contributed well in this thread. Miracles has surprised me positively with some insights. Peace out to all people of good will!

Humility and tolerance for all religions is vital since everything originates back to the same source. Just like Jerusalem is the holy land of Christendom, Islam and The Jews. The Great paradox...

My assurance in form of knowledge from scriptures, sources and inituition tells me Jerusalem were built by the Indians which emigrated from their country very early in Kali Yuga to search for the supreme in other nations and cultures. Since they found nothing which could overcome their own heritage, vedic knowlege was established in all corners of the world. Jerusalem was probably built as their main spiritual force center outside Bharata or India. Actually vedic culture originates from the spiritual world and were spread all over the planet prehistorically by these pioneers of the old world. Anyway that is just my 5cents in point of view.

I have to apologize since i have been a bit off topic, but mainly my reply was regarding the different Vishnu/Krishna incarnations: You forgot his last incarnation as Lord Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu (1486 - 1534)

Keep up the good work with your thread Dedicate.

[dedicate]

Yes, thanks.

The concept of Avatar or Avatara has always been an interesting one. The word literally means "a descent", therefore could be loosely applied to any being descending from the higher realms to the lower human realm. There are other nuances and uses to the term also.

Another Avatar not mentioned in the usual list of 10 is Ram. Then, Jesus, was Avatar. Have you any information on the word Messiah being similar to Avatar -- the Jewish saviour would be an Avatar, but used as a strickly Hebrew term meaning only one particular incarnation? Then would you have any knowledge of the Elohim being what is called Manvantara Avatara? The Buddhist then, do not recognize Female Avataras. The Vaishnavas only accept the incarnations of Vishnu as Avatar, but there is dispute on the # of incarnations.

Generally, when I use the term, I apply it to meaning a Guru who has the ability to save as many people as come to him/her. Some Guru's will work with just one student at a time, others will work with small groups, and still others have many hundreds of Chelas. But an Avatara has the ability to save/enlighten the entire world. That's my understanding. But I'm sure that is not 100% all of what Avatara is or means.


Blavatsky has stated here -- "Hinduism is the source of all Religious knowledge". Now that statement could be taken in different ways. All relgions could benefit greatly by a study of Hinduism, that's for sure. Christianity especially. What was the motto of the Theosophist? "No Religion is higher than Truth". Something like that. So, if the Modern Christian were really interested in finding truth, I believe he would be gravitated to the Vedas. The Vedas,, where no knowledge goes undiscovered. Buddhism,, now,, that religion originated in Bharata -- no? -- so Buddhist concepts are not all that foreign to the Hindus.

[dedicate]

We would ask this French scholar, who seems so familiar with every sloka of the books of Manu, and other Vedic writers, the meaning of this sentence so well known to him: --- "Plants and vegetation reveal a multitude of forms because of their precedent actions; they are surrounded by darkness, but are nevertheless endowed with an interior soul, and feel equally pleasure and pain" (Manu, book i.).

If the Hindu philosophy teach the presence of a degree of soul in the lowest forms of vegetable life, and even in every atom in space, how is it possible that it should deny the same immortal principle to man? And if it once admit the immortal spirit in man, how can it logically deny the existence of the parent source -- I will not say the first, but the eternal Cause? Neither rationalists nor sensualists, who do not comprehend Indian metaphysics, should estimate the ignorance of Hindu metaphysicians by their own.

The grand cycle, as we have heretofore remarked, includes the progress of mankind from its germ in the primordial man of spiritual form to the deepest depth of degradation he can reach -- each successive step in the descent being accompanied by a greater strength and grossness of the physical form than its precursor -- and ends with the Flood. But while the grand cycle, or age, is running its course, seven minor cycles are passed, each marking the evolution of a new race out of the preceding one, on a new world. And each of these races, or grand types of humanity, breaks up into subdivisions of families, and they again into nations and tribes, as we see the earth's inhabitants subdivided to-day into Mongols, Caucasians, Indians, etc.

[dedicate]

Before proceeding to show by diagrams the close resemblance between the esoteric philosophies of all the ancient peoples, however geographically remote from each other, it will be useful to briefly explain the real ideas which underlie all those symbols and allegorical representations and have hitherto so puzzled the uninitiated commentators. Better than anything, it may show that religion and science were closer knit than twins in days of old; that they were one in two and two in one from the very moment of their conception. With mutually convertible attributes, science was spiritual and religion was scientific. Like the androgyne man of the first chapter of Genesis -- "male and female," passive and active; created in the image of the Elohim. Omniscience developed omnipotency, the latter called for the exercise of the former, and thus the giant had dominion given him over all the four kingdoms of the world. But, like the second Adam, these androgynes were doomed to "fall and lose their powers" as soon as the two halves of the duality separated. The fruit of the Tree of Knowledge gives death without the fruit of the Tree of Life. Man must know himself before he can hope to know the ultimate genesis even of beings and powers less developed in their inner nature than himself. So with religion and science; united two in one they were infallible, for the spiritual intuition was there to supply the limitations of physical senses. Separated, exact science rejects the help of the inner voice, while religion becomes merely dogmatic theology -- each is but a corpse without a soul.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All this is self evident by now to the discriminating reader. Today, these issues are Current Issues. More Current than when these words were written. -- At the time of Publication of ISIS UNVEILED, in the late 1800's, virtually no Buddhist or Yogi had visited the west, translated a scripture, or taught a westerner in the higher teachings. Most people in Europe and America had no idea what Buddhism or Hinduism was. Today, not only have there been thousands of books published on Zen and Tantra even, but many hundreds of enlightened souls from the East have lived and tought here. Then there are the millions of western students of religion who have more than taken a casual interest in those subjects.

But still, we have this incessant disagreement. Sciences will deny Religion. Religion, out of ignorance more than anything, fails to use the tools of logic, research and understandings in it's quest for truth. Then -- all leaders of any merit today are pointing to differing factions of religions inablity to unify and live at peace with another's belief system; this causes social instabilty and much trouble.

Blavatsky, over 100 years ago, was pointing out the importance of finding what it is we agree on and building on that. She here has said that Religion and Science are Brothers ("Twins"). Science without religion or Religion without science are soulless pursuits, she says. She has also explained the eternal truths of all religions have been discovered or at least available to all people of all cultures thoughout history. No reason to fight over seeing things slightly different. Here-in she has proved her position the correct one. -- Science has not proved the existance of Religion as unnessasary, and one religion has not become the one and only sourse of spiritual knowledge to the world -- as was once believed they would do. No! We have discovered that there is room enough and peace enough for us all to live. Blavatsky is thus the true Prophet of the New Age -- not the Fundamentalist or Materialist.

Evidently a good portion of what will follow in her writings are going to show this Brotherhood of Truth within the teachings and practices of all cultures and relgions.

More later:

[dedicate]

The esoteric doctrine, then, teaches, like Buddhism and Brahmanism, and even the persecuted Kabala, that the one infinite and unknown Essence exist from all eternity, and in regular and harmonious successions is either passive or active. In the poetical phraseology of Manu these conditions are called the "day" and the "night" of Brahma. The latter is either "awake" or "asleep." The Svabhavikas, or philosophers of the oldest school of Buddhism (which still exists in Nepaul), speculate but upon the active condition of this "essence," which they call Svabhavat, and deem it foolish to theorize upon the abstract and "unknowable" power in its passive condition. Hence they are called atheists by both Christian theology and modern scientists; for neither of the two are able to understand the profound logic of their philosophy. The former will allow of no other God than the personified secondary powers which have blindly worked out the visible universe, and which became with them the anthropomorphic God of the Christians -- the Jehovah, roaring amid thunder and lightning. In its turn, rationalistic science greets the Buddhists and the Svabhavikas as the "positivists" of the archaic ages. If we take a one-sided view of the philosophy of the latter, our materialists may be right in their own way. The Buddhists maintain that there is no Creator but an infinitude of creative powers, which collectively form the one eternal substance, the essence of which is inscrutable -- hence not a subject for speculation for any true philosopher. Socrates invariably refused to argue upon the mystery of universal being, yet no one would ever have thought of charging him with atheism, except those who were bent upon his destruction. Upon inaugurating an active period, says the Secret Doctrine, an expansion of this Divine essence, from within outwardly, occurs in obedience to eternal and immutable law, and the phenomenal or visible universe is the ultimate result of the long chain of cosmical forces thus progressively set in motion. In like manner, when the passive condition is resumed, a contraction of the Divine essence takes place, and the previous work of creation is gradually and progressively undone. The visible universe becomes disintegrated, its material dispersed; and "darkness," solitary and alone, broods once more over the face of the "deep." To use a metaphor which will convey the idea still more clearly, an outbreathing of the "unknown essence" produces the world; and an inhalation causes it to disappear. This process has been going on from all eternity, and our present universe is but one of an infinite series which had no beginning and will have no end.

[dedicate]

In this last excerpt from "ISIS", there is room enough for a thread all it's own. Many times people will ponder, "How old is the Universe?", "When did it begin and how much time will it exist?". "When, how, why and Where was this Creation Created? -- and the creation that created that? Where when how why of this?"

Deep within the recesses of Religious teachings these questions have been shown to be not so unexplainable. And these solutions are not the fantisical speculations of an imaginative mind, and are not something that just has to be accepted as fact and left at that. The truth of these things have either been handed down to us from above or discovered here below as the truth of the matter. Something for you to discover on your own and for your self.

All traditions will present the Universe (all things) as a everlasting cycle of cycles within cycles of creation and disollution. There is no need to pin-point the actual Grandiousness and Eternallity concept, as long as one understands the fundamental theory.-- because the truth of it exist everywhere and anywhere. The Toaist will represent this Cosmology in the simple Yin-Yang symbol. The first Chapter of Genesis, when read in Hebrew, will indeed confirm the night/day aspect of Brahman and His Creation aspect. Blavatsky said Aristotle knew about this. The Buddhist knows. The Hindu Vedas explains much. You too can know, because when you move into the world of religion and outside the world of Phd's and conformity logic you will begin to see --- there are no limits to your understanding of all things.

More later.

[dedicate]

---- This process has been going on from all eternity, and our present universe is but one of an infinite series which had no beginning and will have no end.-----

Thus we are enabled to build our theories solely on the visible manifestations of the Deity, on its objective natural phenomena. To apply to these creative principles the term God is puerile and absurd. One might as well call by the name of Benvenuto Cellini the fire which fuses the metal, or the air that cools it when it is run in the mould. If the inner and ever-concealed spiritual, and to our minds abstract, Essence within these forces can ever be connected with the creation of the physical universe, it is but in the sense given to it by Plato. IT may be termed, at best, the framer of the abstract universe which developed gradually in the Divine Thought within which it had lain dormant.

In Chapter VIII. we will attempt to show the esoteric meaning of Genesis, and its complete agreement with the ideas of other nations. The six days of creation will be found to have a meaning little suspected by the multitude of commentators, who have exercised their abilities to the full extent in attempting to reconcile them by turns with Christian theology and un-Christian geology. Disfigured as the Old Testament is, yet in its symbolism is preserved enough of the original in its principal features to show the family likeness to the cosmogonies of older nations than the Jews.

We here give the diagrams of the Hindu and the Chaldeo-Jewish cosmogonies. The antiquity of the diagram of the former may be inferred from the fact that many of the Brahmanical pagodas are designed and built on this figure, called the "Sri-Iantara." And yet we find the highest honors paid to it by the Jewish and mediaeval kabalists, who call it "Solomon's seal." It will be quite an easy matter to trace it to its origin, once we are reminded of the history of the king-kabalist and his transaction with King Hiram and Ophir -- the country of peacocks, gold, and ivory -- for which land we have to search in old India.

[brio313]

Sorry i havent had the time or resources to respond properly dedicate.

But anyway,

Is this relevant? This is from Krishna Book, chapter 40:

Battle of Vishnu Avatars

"Let me therefore offer my respectful obeisances unto the incarnation of fish, who appeared in devastation, although Your Lordship is the cause of all causes. Let me offer my respectful obeisances unto the Hayagriva incarnation, who killed the two demons Madhu and Kaitabha; let me offer my respectful obeisances unto You, who appeared as the gigantic tortoise that held up the great mountain Mandara and who appeared as the boar that rescued the earth planet which had fallen into the water of the Garbhodaka. Let me offer my respectful obeisances unto Your Lordship, who appeared as Nrsimhadeva, who delivered all kinds of devotees from the fearful condition of atheistic atrocities. Let me offer my respectful obeisances unto You, who appeared as Vamanadeva and covered the three worlds simply by expanding Your lotus feet. Let me offer my respectful obeisances unto You who appeared as the Lord of the Bhrgus in order to kill all the infidel administrators of the world. And let me offer my respectful obeisances unto You who appeared as Lord Rama to kill demons like Ravana. You are worshiped by all devotees as the chief of the Raghu dynasty, Lord Ramacandra. Let me offer my respectful obeisances unto You, who appear as Lord Vasudeva, Lord Sankarsana, Lord Pradyumna and Lord Aniruddha. Let me offer my respectful obeisances unto You, who appear as Lord Buddha to bewilder the atheistic and demoniac. And let me offer my respectful obeisances unto You who appear as Kalki to chastise the so-called royal order degraded to the abominable condition of the mlecchas, who are below the jurisdiction of Vedic regulative principles."