Jews as Chosen People: A Theosophical Perspective

Discussion in 'Alternative' started by Nick the Pilot, Jul 18, 2009.

  1. Nick the Pilot

    Nick the Pilot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2007
    Messages:
    3,807
    Likes Received:
    61
    Dauer,

    This has been a fascinating discussion between the two of us. I had no idea that the Jewish and non-Jewish interpretation of "choseness" is different. Thank you for bring this information to our attention. I thank you for helping us to understand your view of your religion better.
     
  2. Nick the Pilot

    Nick the Pilot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2007
    Messages:
    3,807
    Likes Received:
    61
    Avi,

    You have brought up the subject of racial superiority. Unfortunately, it has become a sore point of discussion for many people. As Brian has pointed out, the Nazis used the idea of racial superiority to kill Jews. I am afraid we have to be very careful when discussing ideas of racial superiority and inferiority.

    But what of present-day human-types who fought against Atlanteans, the so-called giants of the Bible? Is this a case of racial superiority? I say it is. I do not consider the issue of racial superiority to be a forbidden topic of discussion. And, it certainly does not impact present-day mankind the way many people would think. Theosophy teaches that we all reincarnate. A white man who discrimintates against a black man may very well be re-born as that black man's future baby, and reap the benefits of his own acts of discrimination. This is a fundamental issue in Theosophy.
     
  3. Nick the Pilot

    Nick the Pilot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2007
    Messages:
    3,807
    Likes Received:
    61
    Avi,

    You asked if The Secret Doctrine has few references to scientific sources. The vast majority of references in the book are religious references, but it also contains a few scientific references. Also, please remember that the book was written in 1885, when science was quite different than what it is today. A Secrect Doctrine that was written today would be quite different.

    The Secret Doctrine is definitely a book of mysticism and the occult. There was a time when the word occult had a good connotation. (For me, it still does.) Many people today think that any idea labeled an occult idea is automatically an evil idea, which is something I totally disagree with. Quite frankly, I accuse the Christian establishment of giving the word occult a bad name -- another reason why I choose not to be part of Christianity.
     
  4. dauer

    dauer New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2004
    Messages:
    3,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    It isn't just my view and you're welcome to confirm that for yourself by doing a little research. It has been historically and still is the majority Jewish view that chosenness is primarily about responsibility and obligation, not privilege. Both the Tanach and the Talmud support this perspective. imo the gentile view of chosenness most likely developed within Christian, anti-Jewish polemics but I'm not sure whether or not that was the case.

    You can see here where the author comes from a very different perspective than I do, indeed disagrees with me on some matters related to chosenness, yet the core of chosenness as not about superiority or privilege is the same:

    Chosen People

    or here where it is again stated that the vast majority of Jews, historically and today, understand chosenness in the way I have outlined:

    Jews as a chosen people - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    I consider your response a shallow and half-hearted attempt to be civil that's masking your intention to silence me and not acknowledge that you are speaking about Judaism in the same way that you dislike people speaking about theosophy. You're masking your hypocrisy behind shallow niceties.

    -- Dauer
     
  5. Avi

    Avi Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2009
    Messages:
    1,399
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nick, if you had much more time, I do not believe you would find another reference to support the existance of 60 ft. men/women.

    There is at least one person with archeological / anthropological experience in this forum, why not ask her ?

    As a pilot, you must have strong reasoning and logical skills. I am surprised that you are willing to drop them for this particular discussion :confused:.

    More on the other posts shortly.
     
  6. wil

    wil UNeyeR1

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    21,162
    Likes Received:
    1,660
    oh there are plenty of references to the big people in various literature...

    how tall were the giants of the bible?

    or one could study Ramtha and find they are still alive in the middle of the earth...

    Is anyone saying they were in this dimension?
     
  7. Nick the Pilot

    Nick the Pilot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2007
    Messages:
    3,807
    Likes Received:
    61
    Wil,

    Thank you for your support. We have the statues that the Taliban blew up, which are said to be life-size images of the giants. We have the giant head-statues on Easter Island, which are also said to be life-size images of gthe giants. There is the less-convincing idea that giants built Stonehenge by hand.

    I guess it is a matter of which side of the question appeals to a particular person.
     
  8. wil

    wil UNeyeR1

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    21,162
    Likes Received:
    1,660
    Namaste Nick,

    Before I get too many kudos... I've said there were plenty of references.. I don't know if I buy them, call me a skeptic in this regard.

    I only know I've been bitten in the past on things I've denied being possible...so I say "yeah right' a lot less sarcastically and often than I used to.
     
  9. Nick the Pilot

    Nick the Pilot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2007
    Messages:
    3,807
    Likes Received:
    61
    Wil,

    I, too, do not believe everything I hear. I think you have the right attitude, looking at all of these ideas, and considering if they are true or not, without actually committing yourself as to whether or not you believe them. That is the fun of a Forum such as this -- to kick around ideas and see if they make a little sense, a lot of sense, or no sense at all.
     
  10. Nick the Pilot

    Nick the Pilot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2007
    Messages:
    3,807
    Likes Received:
    61
    Dauer,

    I thought we were having a nice little discussion about perceptions of Judiasm from both inside and outside of the Jewish world, differences in perceptions that I was not aware of. I am always interested in how people from two different belief systems view each other. Surprisingly, our conversation has left you accusing me of being hypocritical and of trying to silence you. It is clear, then, that our discussion needs to end.

    I wish you well in your quest for inter-religious dialogue and communication.
     
  11. Nick the Pilot

    Nick the Pilot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2007
    Messages:
    3,807
    Likes Received:
    61
    Avi,

    You said,

    "As a pilot, you must have strong reasoning and logical skills. I am surprised that you are willing to drop them for this particular discussion...."

    --> I am baffled by your statement. A theory has been advanced that giants used to roam the world, the theory was advanced by someone whose opinions I respect, and whose theories on giants fit very nicely into a larger, well-constructed general theory on the beginning of the universe, our solar system, our planet, and the human race in a "reasonable and logical" way. I do not feel a deep motivation to absolutely prove that giants did or did not in fact roam the earth. It is a fascinating theory that makes sense to me, fits nicely into my personal belief system, and that is about it as far as I am concerned. Should the opportunity present itself in the future for me to accidentally come across more information on the topic, of course I would be interested to hear what someone else has found. But your contention that my unwillingness to actively pursue a deeper study into the question indicates that I have taken leave of reason and logic leaves me quite baffled.
     
  12. dauer

    dauer New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2004
    Messages:
    3,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    You had a problem with me stating unequivocally that X is the general Jewish concept of chosenness and outsider opinions to the contrary are incorrect. You act as if outside perspectives are equally or more valid. You went on to argue the latter by suggesting that outsider opinions about our concepts have biblical foundations and our actual concepts are at odds with the bible. Yet when someone suggests that theosophy is antisemitic you state unequivocally that it's not the case. You can't have it both ways. If you attempt to do so then you're a hypocrite.
     
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2009
  13. Avi

    Avi Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2009
    Messages:
    1,399
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nick, it is not just a matter of who can come up with the craziest idea we can and then lets vote on it. The ideas have to be supported by some evidence. We have all seen many dinosaurs built from archeologically collected bones. Have you seen any of these with 60 foot men / women ?


    Finally some progress. How did ancient Egyptians build pyramids. A giant human crane ???

    Hopefully there is some connection to reality involved.
     
  14. Avi

    Avi Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2009
    Messages:
    1,399
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ok, give us part 2 of the theory. Were the giants there for the big bang ?


    I can understand that lack of motivation.


    If it is such a fascinating theory, why are you unmotivated to prove it ?


    So your level of interest in this topic extend to information that you can gain accidentally ?


    I guess after listening to your reasoning, I think lazy might be a better description :confused:
     
  15. Avi

    Avi Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2009
    Messages:
    1,399
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually, if you do not have a hidden racial superiority agenda, you do not have to be too careful, just honest. However, I am not sure your racial superiority agenda is hidden. That goes to the next quote.


    Ok, Nick, I think we are making some progress here. Tell us about the "racial superiority". Your theories of racial superiority are not forbidden topics of discussion. In fact I think they will generate a great deal of interest.
     
  16. Nick the Pilot

    Nick the Pilot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2007
    Messages:
    3,807
    Likes Received:
    61
    Avi, after having someone else call me hypocritical and telling me that I am trying to silence them, it is now your turn to call me lazy and unmotivated, and suggest that I need to have seen 60 foot men / women in order to believe they may have existed. I am sorry to have wasted your time.
     
  17. Avi

    Avi Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2009
    Messages:
    1,399
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nick, I tend to become sarcastic when I get angry, so I am sorry I showed that side of me.

    I have not seen that side of Dauer, so perhaps it is your comments which are inflammatory.

    On the other hand, for someone who holds theories of racial superiority, you seem to be overly sensitive when it comes to criticism, wouldn't you agree ?? I am not afraid to look at ugly ideas. Give it your best shot.

    Don't you see that I view "chosenness" as a form of "racial superiority" ? That is an irony of this thread.

    These are deeply held emotional beliefs by both sides, if you do not have the stomach for them, perhaps better not start the tread.
     
  18. bananabrain

    bananabrain awkward squadnik

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,749
    Likes Received:
    2
    so does the jewish mystical tradition. look up "gilgul nefashot".

    also for us, albeit we would suggest that the nature of causality is far less obvious than this example. it is the reason, in my opinion, that one of maimonides' 13 principles is that we should believe that "good people are rewarded and bad people punished" - we have to believe it because it's very hard to see that it happens!

    in a long history of interfaith dialogue i am constantly confronted with this reality as the starting point.

    yes, because they tend to be associated with discrimination, hatred and persecution. that is the jewish experience of it at any rate. when theosophy was first developed in the C19th racial theories were all the rage, it would be surprising if they were not included. as you yourself say:

    judaism, by contrast, does not purport to be "scientific" because it pre-dates modern science and is there to answer very different questions. i suspect that were the Revelation to take place nowadays it would have to be understood in the light of modern science as well - actually, this is a very maimonidean position, at least in terms of what i consider to be the viewpoint put forward in the "guide". it is somewhat surprising that you are attempting to show theosophy as if it has a quasi-scientific basis but are nonetheless rejecting scientific method (independent peer-reviewed studies, experimental data, up-to-date research techniques, logical approaches such as occam's razor) when it comes to examining what are, frankly, quite extraordinary claims compared to something on which there is a broad scientific consensus, like the existence of dinosaurs. i find it somewhat odd that you can make a point like this but then resist any attempt to assess helena blavatsky as a typical product of C19th european occult philosophy. that isn't terribly scientific.

    except, apparently, if it's in the "secret doctrine" or "isis unveiled".

    well, avi, dauer and i do not. that should be pretty obvious. you can see, nick - three jews and already there's a makhloket (dispute).

    b'shalom

    bananabrain
     
  19. Nick the Pilot

    Nick the Pilot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2007
    Messages:
    3,807
    Likes Received:
    61
    "I, too, do not believe everything I hear." --> except, apparently, if it's in the "secret doctrine" or "isis unveiled".

    --> No. As a matter of fact, a group of us Theosophists were just discussing this very topic. The Secret Doctrine claims to tell the story of the beginning of our universe. I disagree, I think it only tells the story of the beginning of our solar system. (I am very much in the minority when it comes to believing such a thing.)

    There is another issue that Theosophists do not agree on. There is a fundamental Theosophical teaching that we were the animals on a previous planet, that our present-day animals were the plantlife on that previous planet, etc. The disagreement comes as to which planet we previously inhabited, and which will be the next planet where today's animals become that planet's human race. So, as you can see, there is disagreement between theosophists.

    "...we should believe that "good people are rewarded and bad people punished" - we have to believe it because it's very hard to see that it happens!"

    --> Fortunately, the theories of karma and reincarnation guarantee that all good acts will be rewarded, all bad acts will be punished, and all inequalities will be equalized. There is no theory that is more fair.

    "i find it somewhat odd that you can make a point like this but then resist any attempt to assess helena blavatsky as a typical product of C19th european occult philosophy."

    --> Blavatsky was anything but a typical product of 19th century european occult philosophy. According to the theory, she brought eastern philosophy to the west, a very difficult thinng to do. Remember that concepts such as reincarnation and karma were practically unheard of in the west at that time. Theosophy takes credit for popularizing ideas such as reincarnation and karma in the west.
     
  20. Nick the Pilot

    Nick the Pilot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2007
    Messages:
    3,807
    Likes Received:
    61
    "that isn't terribly scientific."

    --> A great Theosophist once made the point that there are scientific truths, intellectual truths, and religious truths. Science deals with the scientific method, and the observing of phenomena in the physical world. Religion deals with super-physical theories and concepts. We cannot use religion to prove scientific ideas, and vice versa. People often want to use science to prove religious theories, and I am afraid that they are barking up the wrong tree.

    ...and I plan to watch Fiddler on the Roof tonight!
     

Share This Page