Theosophy: Can we agree that tormenting people for all time is wrong no matter what?

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

--> The distinction between dogma and doctrine is a tricky one, and it is one all of us must consider carefully ... For example, my belief system says we must totally eliminate lust before we can enter Nirvana. (The requirements to enter Heaven are different, but that is another topic.) I would not call such an anti-lust idea a dogma (but I suppose there are people who would). I would say that voicing a particular creed, or particular deity's name in order to get into Heaven is dogma, while doing good deeds and thinking good thoughts is a doctrine.

"That's very common (ie. dogma) in Christianity."

--> Dogma is a significant issue in Christianity.

"Dogma makes things unnatural . . . so . . . thumbs up to developing personality traits."

As someone who claims esoteric insight, I find your limitation of the meaning of dogma to a purely exoteric and indeed fundamentalist viewpoint a telling critique of your methodology.

Anything that is a 'must' is a dogma ... in fact, if there is no dogma, there is nothing at all but the ephemeral, the relative, the worthless ...

Perhaps I shall start a thread on the proper meaning of the term.

Thomas

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Anything that is a 'must' is a dogma ... in fact, if there is no dogma, there is nothing at all but the ephemeral, the relative, the worthless ...

What if . . . it wasn't a must . . . what if there was a choice, one that pertained to your personal vocation?

ie. one person chooses to wear spectables, another chooses contact lenses. One chooses a sedan, another chooses a station wagon. You choose to build a wind turbine farm. I choose to install solar panels.

Originally Posted by Thomas

Perhaps I shall start a thread on the proper meaning of the term.

That was a topic I overlooked as worthy for a thread . . .

Originally Posted by Quahom1

What is the matter Salt? Don't like it when a Christian stands up? Or is is when any person stands up?

Just making an observation . . . no value-judgments here. I see a crusader standing up for what he feels is right. The AndrewX phenomenon. Maybe it's the Quahom phenomenon too. But anyway, that was just an observation. There are different kinds of animals in the Animal Kingdom and it takes a lifetime to appreciate the diversity and variety. Christian? Yeah I'm one too. Species X observing other members of species X lol.

(*Lowering the periscope and sinking into the depths to find other ships to blow up and sink*)

[Saltmeister]

*** sorry, post not ready *** please ignore

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

What if . . . it wasn't a must . . . what if there was a choice, one that pertained to your personal vocation?

It's a misplaced argument ... personal vocation is to do with an individual disposition towards a truth or fact, it does not alter the truth or fact in itself.

I am a Christian Symbolist, a Christian esotericist, a Christian Platonist ... but not every Christian is, nor is every Christian even disposed to such an approach.

Within Catholicism, there are numerous spiritual and philosophical streams.

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

The AndrewX phenomenon.

Not quite, the sadness of the AndrewX phenomenon was twofold:
1 - Andrew insisted on telling other people what they believed was false;
2 - Andrew insisted that no view was valid other than his own;
3 - Any opinion that did not accord with his own was perceived a personal attack.

He and I crossed swords more than any other, and I cross swords with Nick on precisely the same terms ... I do not question or challenge what either of them believe, but I do speak out when they erroneously present, knowingly or otherwise, what a Christian believes.

This is the point that Quahom made ... every man is entitled to believe in what he so chooses, but that entitlement does not stretch to allowing a man to state what other people believe, without at least checking first to see if he's got his facts right.

As Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and others here have pointed out, the American Theosophical Association almost habitually, it would seem, misrepresents the doctrines of other traditions in affirming its own supposed superiority, on the one hand, whilst claiming the only valid and authentic interpretation of said doctrines on the other.

All I have asked, continually, is that Theosophists present their own doctrines without misrepresenting mine ... I can present mine without any reference to theirs whatsoever ... and so can everyone else, it seems.

Thomas

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

--> Wouldn't it be great if we could spend all of our time on all the things we want to do?

Several questions come to mind.

1. Am I not already doing what I want? Have I missed something? Am I doing what I don't want to do?

2. What can I do about it? Is there a religion that can make that happen 100%? This is most probably a 99% no.

Got ideas?

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

--> According to my belief system, Jehovah is the patron saint of the Jews, who was later "promoted" to The Almighty. According to my belief system, yes, the Jews are the chosen people of their own patron saint. It is an interesting question; what commitments does each human have to the patron saint of their group?

A "saint" cannot be God, as a saint is one who devotes himself to a cause . . . so . . . the God of the Jews is a less-than-God being who "ascended" to become God?

This has a similarity with Mormon doctrines, where the flesh-blood-and-bones Adam became God.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

--> The distinction between dogma and doctrine is a tricky one, and it is one all of us must consider carefully. You know the old joke, what I believe is doctrine, what everybody else believes is dogma (ha). For example, my belief system says we must totally eliminate lust before we can enter Nirvana. (The requirements to enter Heaven are different, but that is another topic.) I would not call such an anti-lust idea a dogma (but I suppose there are people who would). I would say that voicing a particular creed, or particular deity's name in order to get into Heaven is dogma, while doing good deeds and thinking good thoughts is a doctrine.

I think an important characteristic of doctrine and dogma is their significance. Are they famous and how often are they used? I have my own personal doctrines. Many of them would be similar with those other individuals possess. This in itself is a doctrine. Do you agree with me?

The difference between dogma and doctrine may be that dogma is seem as essential or mandatory, or is imposed on others while doctrine is a matter of choice and personal preference. Take, for example, the John Monroe Doctrine, Bill Clinton Doctrine, George W. Bush Doctrine -- ie. every U.S. President has had a policy and set of beliefs for governance, foreign policy and strengthening the country. The American people don't have to adopt those beliefs.

Dogma: what I identify as important, essential and mandatory for me is also essential and mandatory for you. What I instruct you to do is not a description but a definition. You are either for me or against me in this.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

--> We have a zillion topics we could discuss.
• Do you believe in reincarnation?
• Do you see a difference between Heaven and Nirvana?
• Do you see a difference between Enlightenment and Nirvana?

The question of whether or not I explore particular topics, depends on whether I think it's affecting me in the present. There seems to have been little contention between my faith and Theosophy so it's kind of hard to find a context. Because there's a lot more contention within the Abrahamic faiths I hear more about them and I often get some interesting insights from the other two major Abrahamic faiths.

Buddhism is quite (very) popular, and I've seen interesting things said by Buddhists and people influenced by Buddhism. I have to assume AndrewX is a Theosophist. It's more of a rarity, even in the Belief and Spirituality forum to hear Theosophy being discussed. It's quite possible, on the other hand that a lot of people there are Theosophists and I didn't even know. They didn't announce themselves.

I get interested (I probably won't respond, but I make a note) in a particular faith when someone says something positive about it like why it is of so much value.

My curiosity in Theosophy began when I was reading about the Stargate SG-1 television series in Wikipedia (I watched and read about series). One of the articles commented that the series' depiction of "ascended beings" had influences from Theosophy, so I decided to find out what it was all about.

The last two seasons of Stargate SG-1 were about a war between earth and the Ori, ascended beings who claimed to be gods and promised ascension if people followed the Book of Origin. The season had some interesting things to say about the ethics of Godhood, the ethics of being vastly more powerful than lesser beings and using them for one's own purposes. Here I may speculate about whether it's possible that adherents of the Abrahamic faiths are being played.

In this case the Ori wanted power and were at war with the Ancients (also ascended), and were using the followers of Origin to generate energy so that they could one day defeat the Ancients. The Ori could be compared to the Abrahamic faiths while the Ancients could be compared to secularism. It much the same way that Christianity and Islam proselyte, the Ori sent Priors throughout the galaxy to introduce people to Origin and lead them to the Truth. If a village did not convert or accept their teachings, it would be killed off and punished by disease. Those who "turned from the error of their ways" were spared.

For a religion to have influenced a television series . . . it would have to have been quite well-established and well-known. Theosophy may not be as widespread as Buddhism, but it's certainly big enough to influence popular culture.

But anyway, as I said, I like reading about people's experiences. ie. What draws one to Theosophy?

[Nick the Pilot]

Saltmeister, you asked,

"1. Am I not already doing what I want? Have I missed something? Am I doing what I don't want to do?

2. What can I do about it? Is there a religion that can make that happen 100%? This is most probably a 99% no.

Got ideas?"

--> Boy, I could write a book on the answers to these questions. Assuming there is an afterlife, what can we do now to make that afterlife better? This is the question that all religions strive to answer.



I think all religions agree on one point: We all have things we want, yet sometimes our wants interfere with the needs of the group we belong to. Selfishness is an issue, and we need to distinguish needs from selfish desires. How to deal with cravings is one of the central issues in Theosophy as well as Buddhism.

"A "saint" cannot be God, as a saint is one who devotes himself to a cause . . . so . . . the God of the Jews is a less-than-God being who "ascended" to become God?"

--> I am not saying He ascended. I am saying that, because of certain circumstances, the people were told to look at Jehovah in a new light.

"This has a similarity with Mormon doctrines, where the flesh-blood-and-bones Adam became God."

--> There is a threory that Jesus was a reincarnation of Adam, although I do not subscribe to such a theory. As far as Adam becoming God, I would put that with the same idea that Jesus was God.

" I have my own personal doctrines. Many of them would be similar with those other individuals possess. This in itself is a doctrine. Do you agree with me?"

--> Yes!

"The difference between dogma and doctrine may be that dogma is seem as essential or mandatory...."

--> I would include the idea of closed-mindedness in the word dogma.

"There seems to have been little contention between my faith and Theosophy so it's kind of hard to find a context. Because there's a lot more contention within the Abrahamic faiths I hear more about them and I often get some interesting insights from the other two major Abrahamic faiths."

--> What Theosophical and Abrahamic ideas do you agree and disagree with?

"It's more of a rarity, even in the Belief and Spirituality forum to hear Theosophy being discussed."

--> The number of Theosophists is small, although it is increasing. The founder of Theosophy said it would be unpopular, and she was right. Theosophy requires too much work for most people.

"It's quite possible, on the other hand that a lot of people there are Theosophists and I didn't even know. They didn't announce themselves."

--> I am convinced most Theosophists will never join this Forum.

"My curiosity in Theosophy began when I was reading about the Stargate SG-1 television series in Wikipedia (I watched and read about series). One of the articles commented that the series' depiction of "ascended beings" had influences from Theosophy, so I decided to find out what it was all about."

Theosophy supposidely came from a group of "ascended beings" who wanted to spread the teachings.

"The season had some interesting things to say about the ethics of Godhood, the ethics of being vastly more powerful than lesser beings and using them for one's own purposes."

--> This is an issue we all must be aware of. Cults abound.

"Here I may speculate about whether it's possible that adherents of the Abrahamic faiths are being played."

--> In what way?

"In this case the Ori wanted power and were at war with the Ancients (also ascended), and were using the followers of Origin to generate energy so that they could one day defeat the Ancients."

--> According to Theosophy, this is slightly slimilar to what really happened at the beginning of mankind.

"If a village did not convert or accept their teachings, it would be killed off and punished by disease. Those who "turned from the error of their ways" were spared."

--> I am reminded of American Indians who were killed for refusing to convert to Christianity.

"For a religion to have influenced a television series . . . it would have to have been quite well-established and well-known. Theosophy may not be as widespread as Buddhism, but it's certainly big enough to influence popular culture."

Theosophy takes credit for popularizing the two ideas of reincarnation and karma in the western world.

"What draws one to Theosophy?"

• It is a theory that makes sense. I can find no flaw in the basic premise.

• It's most important teaching is brotherhood. A white person who hates black people may very well be reborn as a black person. (Such a person would then endure the very hatred they had perpetuated.) Theosophy strives to teach such examples.

• It makes sense of Heaven, Purgatory, Hell, Enlightenment, and Nirvana. I have not found any other theory that brings these ideas together in one philosophy.

• It requires us to work hard. No simple reciting of a sentence or deity's name will do much to get us to Heaven.

• It shows a commonality of all religions. I have seen a strong similarity between Buddhism, Hinduism, and Judiasim that I would not have seen without Theosophy.

• Errors creep into all religions as the centuries pass by. It is Theosophy's job to point out these errors. I like this aspect very much.

[Bruce Michael]

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

A "saint" cannot be God, as a saint is one who devotes himself to a cause . . . so . . . the God of the Jews is a less-than-God being who "ascended" to become God?

Better put- "Folk Spirit".
Hello Saltmeister,

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

The difference between dogma and doctrine may be that dogma is seem as essential or mandatory, or is imposed on others while doctrine is a matter of choice and personal preference.

DOGS are creatures of habit; and for that matter so are creatures of dogmatism. We all fall subject to certain dogmas and it's important to perceive this within ourselves firstly, rather than worry too often about others restrictive viewpoints. Some folk carry a certain duty with them throughout their work, which is best serviced by the lean-post of dogmatic complacency.
Men tire easily and it is no matter should a particular shelter be sought, by way of reason or by way of faith. If ultimately it does not itself pervert the very nature of the faith and reason to be upheld - that is the point in question. Also too, the very nature of the work one has chosen to carry out with fervour and activity.
Most people are keenly aware of the confines and restrictions placed upon them by outside dogmas which would be imposed on one another. Dogmatism itself does not upset Man, as it is understood by one and all. However, it is essential that folk entering the path can distinguish between dogma and pure doctrine. THE ELDER BROTHERS

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

The question of whether or not I explore particular topics, depends on whether I think it's affecting me in the present. There seems to have been little contention between my faith and Theosophy so it's kind of hard to find a context. Because there's a lot more contention within the Abrahamic faiths I hear more about them and I often get some interesting insights from the other two major Abrahamic faiths.

I'm sure you would find connections if you started to read Isis Unveiled.

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

My curiosity in Theosophy began when I was reading about the Stargate SG-1 television series in Wikipedia (I watched and read about series). One of the articles commented that the series' depiction of "ascended beings" had influences from Theosophy, so I decided to find out what it was all about.

The term "ascended Masters" is not from Blavatskyian theosophy.
There is another show that was heavily influenced:
The Complete Twin Peaks | Theosophy

Also Yeats, James Joyce, L. Frank Baum, Kandinsky and Mondrian were interested in Theosophy.

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

But anyway, as I said, I like reading about people's experiences. ie. What draws one to Theosophy?

Theosophy is much wider and richer that what Br.Nick is presenting. Theosophy should be free from a particular religious colouring.

As for Christians, we too can derive a deeper understanding of the faith by studying Theosophy. For a view on the Logos:

Philosophy of the Bhagavad Gita by T. Subba Row

"Consciousness: A Cosmic Perspective" by T. Subba Row

Greetings,
Br.Bruce

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Bruce Michael

Better put- "Folk Spirit".
Hello Saltmeister,









I'm sure you would find connections if you started to read Isis Unveiled.


The term "ascended Masters" is not from Blavatskyian theosophy.
There is another show that was heavily influenced:
The Complete Twin Peaks | Theosophy

Also Yeats, James Joyce, L. Frank Baum, Kandinsky and Mondrian were interested in Theosophy.



Theosophy is much wider and richer that what Br.Nick is presenting. Theosophy should be free from a particular religious colouring.

As for Christians, we too can derive a deeper understanding of the faith by studying Theosophy. For a view on the Logos:

Philosophy of the Bhagavad Gita by T. Subba Row

"Consciousness: A Cosmic Perspective" by T. Subba Row

Greetings,
Br.Bruce

Damn, first time a theos...ever made sense. I'm impressed.

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

The difference between dogma and doctrine may be that dogma is seem as essential or mandatory, or is imposed on others while doctrine is a matter of choice and personal preference.

I would argue the two operate in completely different spheres.

A doctrine is a teaching — it is a body of knowledge, but it does not, nor can it, change anything.

A dogma is a doctrine one chooses to live by and once realised, or actualised, it is elevated from the theoretical and becomes embodied, a real and living thing, a presence ... whereas a doctrine is always in that sense powerless and inert.

Thomas

[Thomas]

Addenda for Saltmeister:

"Enter ye in at the narrow gate [dogma]: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat [the doctrines of men]. How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it!"
Matthew 7:13-14

Thomas

[Bruce Michael]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Addenda for Saltmeister:

"Enter ye in at the narrow gate [dogma]: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat [the doctrines of men]. How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it!"
Matthew 7:13-14

Thomas

Addenda for Thomas:

"Enter ye in at the narrow gate [pure doctrine]: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat [dogmas of men]. How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it!"
Matthew 7:13-14

[Thomas]

Hi Bruce —

I'm working to the etymology of doctrine being a teaching, but a dogma being an embodied teaching ... so a doctrine is substance but no essence, whereas a dogma is substance and essence.

As essence is higher than substance, I would say dogma is the narrow gate.

Thomas