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

Discussion in 'Alternative' started by Nick the Pilot, Jul 7, 2007.

  1. Thomas

    Thomas Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,739
    Likes Received:
    2,122
    Re: -----====ooo000ooo====-----

    I would suggest then that's because you continue to look from 'within' your paradigm, rather than 'step into' mine, for a moment, as it were, and see it from my perspective.

    I have acknowledged yours, which is why I said above I can fully understand why you see things as you do. I'm simply saying that's not the way we see it.

    Thomas
     
  2. Nick the Pilot

    Nick the Pilot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2007
    Messages:
    3,833
    Likes Received:
    68
    -----====(^_^)====-----

    Thomas, to contine our flow of ideas:

    God punished Adam and Eve because they broke His prohibition against eating from the Tree of Knoweldge. Why? Do Christians see knowledge as bad? Where is the crime of it all?

    Theosophists sees knowledge as a good thing. It has been said the best preparation to become a Theosophist is to study as much as possible.
     
  3. Nick the Pilot

    Nick the Pilot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2007
    Messages:
    3,833
    Likes Received:
    68
    -----====@_@====-----

    Thomas, you said
    "I'm simply saying that's not the way we see it."
    --> You see God as a punishing God. I do not. Feel free to put it inside any paradigm you wish.
     
  4. taijasi

    taijasi Gnōthi seauton

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,640
    Likes Received:
    6
    Re: Theosophy: Can we agree that tormenting people for all time is wrong no matter w

    Indeed, unless we taste of the fruit of the Tree of Gnosis ... we are like a one-winged bird, and will either go around in circles - or will not fly at all. I suppose a Dove is a beautiful, lovely, peaceful bird ... but then, it can also be a dead, bleeding snack for the Eagle which snatches it, unawares, from out of the sky.

    Now, if we add to that harmlessness the WISDOM of the `SERPENTS' ... then our one-winged bird is suddenly not so helpless anymore.

    I rather think of the Phoenix, as this symbol has multiple connotations.

    Or, if you prefer, the mountain goats must eventually move on ahead of the sheep, and scale the Heights directly.

    So, it is the USE, to which we put our knowledge, which determines either our foolishness, or our Wisdom. And Wisdom, understood esoterically, is inseparablefrom LOVE ... thus Christ's dual-instruction in Matthew 10:16.

    The Ancient Wisdom, of which Theosophy forms a part (or is a synonym, in the broadest sense - Theos Sophia), focuses moreso on the positive aspects of the Serpent symbolism, as also on the Benevolent aspects of Deity (the portions of the Divine Being, or `God,' which correspond to Humanity's own Higher Nature).

    Christianity, it seems to me, still has much to teach us about God's LOVE, so long as we confine our scope to ethics ... and to the Good Works of the Saviour of Men, and to the hundreds, even thousands of similar examples which stand as a testimony to the God of LOVE.

    The angry, jealous god of vengeance and wrath, tossing down thunderbolts to strike the heathen in their tracks .... THIS is where Churchianity really isn't going to give us any insight. There is too much anthropomorphism, too much human desire, and too much insistence on trying to apply the rules of HUMAN legalism ... and THAT is why I say we end up with a `god' of absurdity - not in fact, a `God' at all!

    There is a difference; but when you try and meld these two faces together, it's like fire and ice. There is a Divine dispassion, but the Fire of God will ultimately melt all obstacles, and loosen every last chain that binds us.

    Something about temperance here ... Vulcan, or Hephaestus. Let's see, from flesh to Flame - might it take longer than we've realized? ;)
    {Perhaps so, but we all started as a METAL, says the Zohar ... as does the Vedic poet. God's Word is good enough for me. From metal we are forged into --- ... and thus the symbolism of the Philosopher's Stone should be that much closer to our grasp. What is `Gold?' How else would be aspire to build the true Temple!?}

    Sol Invictus!!!

    ~Andrew :)
     
  5. Muslimwoman

    Muslimwoman Coexistence insha'Allah

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2007
    Messages:
    3,633
    Likes Received:
    49
    Re: ~(='.'=)~

    Hi Nick

    I can't say I believe in past lives but my mind is cetainly open on the subject. When I was about 7 I became obsessed with ancient Egypt and that feeling has never left me - to the point that I sold up and moved there as an adult. Something inside me just says I belong there. I think this issue is really upsetting my mother at the moment because I refer to Egypt as home, rather than here.

    It is so sad that this goes on in all religions, particularlly when G-d teaches us to love our brother as ourselves. Personally I think it is a choice we have to make, I can read the Quran and decide to use the information it holds to hate a vast majority of the world or I can choose to see it for what it is and accept I am not the judge of people and must be tolerent to all of mankind. Very sad the choice some people make.

    As Kafka said "there is infinite hope, except for man".

    I have not seen it but shall edeavour to do so, thank you.

    :eek: I didn't mean fight it with hate, I am a great believer in education and re-education.

    Maybe I misnderstood what you said about 'secret', I assumed you meant she should stay in her parents home and pretend to still be Christian. When my view is that the parents need to be educated, even to what ther own scripture is teaching them.

    There is no such symbolism in the Quran, Allah is absolute, He is the be all and end all. There is nothing greater than He. We have no 'Son' in Islam.
    Thank you I shall email the link to her and let you know what she makes of it.

    No. The Quran only allows defensive wars and if the enemy asks for peace we must give them peace. Men that were taken as prisoners of war were released if they agreed to teach ten Muslims to read and write. The Quran does not allow forced conversions or the killing of people because they do not convert.

    There are verses that talk about 'seek them out and kill them wherever you find them' but you have to understand the context, it was talking about a certain group that had betrayed the Muslims during a war at the time. This is one reason so many fanatics exist in Islam, they do not learn the context or history of the revelations.

    There is much about peace treaties with non Muslims in th Quran and doubt those verses would exist if we were told to 'kill the infidels'.

    What Muslims throughout the period of Islam have actually done is another matter but humans are often driven by power and greed, not their scriptures.

    Here, here Andrew, I agree completely. I loved your post thank you. Any faith can teach hatred and intolerence if you go looking for it. You have to read the whole of the scriptures and ask yourself what G-d wants from us. Does He want us to take one small verse and make mayhem in the world with it (even though He tells us He hates mayhem) or does He want us to take the Spirit from the teachings and use that to better the world? It is so clear when you see the overall picture but when you read scriptures with tunnel vision you see only what you want to see.

    This is a very interesting point Andrew. We must answer to that Higher voice, if that means I go against the 'crowd' then so be it but my soul does not have to answer to that crowd, it must answer to G-d and I for one do not believe G-d will accept "but they said so, so I thought my higher voice was wrong" as an excuse.

    You mean I shall be punished for what other Muslims are doing? - yipes I am in BIG trouble.
    Absolutely not, that is the first pillar of Islam, there is only one G-d and He has no partners. We say something called Shahada, which is our declaration of faith (it sounds better in Arabic :p):

    Ash hadu anlaa ilaaha illallaahu wa ash hadu anna muhammadar-rasulallah

    which means

    I bear witness that there is no god except G-d and I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of G-d

    Now I, rather controvercially, belong to a group of Muslims that do not believe in following the hadiths (ie we only follow the Quran) and we believe that mentioning the names of any Prophet in our prayers is blasphemy (as Allah teaches that none shall be worshipped but Allah), so we only say the first posrtion in our prayers but that does not mean we do not believe the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) was not one of the Messengers from G-d.

    Salaam
     
  6. Nick the Pilot

    Nick the Pilot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2007
    Messages:
    3,833
    Likes Received:
    68
    -----====@_@====-----

    Muslimwoman, you said,
    "When I was about 7 I became obsessed with ancient Egypt and that feeling has never left me - to the point that I sold up and moved there as an adult. Something inside me just says I belong there. I think this issue is really upsetting my mother at the moment because I refer to Egypt as home, rather than here."
    --> I know what you were doing in a previous lifetime! Regarding your morhter's attitude, this has alwasy been a big issue with people who are in close contact with a previous lifetime. You may wish to hear from people with similar experiences at the Reincarnation Forum.

    Past Life Forum - Powered by vBulletin


    Regarding your uncanny feelings of connection, and eventual move to Egypt, your experience is the same as mine & Japan. I developed an unusual fascination with Japan when I was in high school, and eventually moved there. I remember walking into the big Buddha temple just south of Tokyo, and saying to myself, "Home at last." There is no reason for the connections you and I have. Only reincarnation can explain it.
    "As Kafka said 'there is infinite hope, except for man'. "

    --> Fortunately, Theosophy says 99.99% of all humanity will make it to Heaven, even those who are presently headed straight for Hell. I do not know of any other philosophy or religion that has such a positive outlook.
    "Have you seen the movie Inherit the Wind? This is a perfect example of what I am talking about. --> I have not seen it but shall edeavour to do so, thank you."

    --> Wow, you have absolutely got to see that movie. That link should help you buy or rent it. Can you get mail-order NetFlix DVD's in Egypt?
    "When my view is that the parents need to be educated, even to what ther own scripture is teaching them."

    --> The situation with hateful Christian parents is especially difficult. The best thing for teenage non-Christians to do is say nothing, and to keep their non-Christian ides to themselves. It is a horrible situation (and happens a lot more often than you might suspect). I believe this is the best way to handle it.
    "We have no 'Son' in Islam."

    --> I was wondering about that. Thanks for clearing that up.
    "There are verses that talk about 'seek them out and kill them wherever you find them' but you have to understand the context, it was talking about a certain group that had betrayed the Muslims during a war at the time."

    --> Thanks for pointing that out. As you know, most Christians think the Quran gives Muslims the right to kill them. Fortunately, you have this opportunity to set the record straight.
    "It is so clear when you see the overall picture but when you read scriptures with tunnel vision you see only what you want to see."

    --> Your relationship with Muslim radicals seems to be particularly difficult, because they seem to be doing that exact thing on a large scale nowadays.
    "...I for one do not believe G-d will accept 'but they said so, so I thought my higher voice was wrong" as an excuse.' "

    --> As I have said before, I think a lot of people will be negatively surprised on Judgement Day. Fortunately, I think you will not.
    "You mean I shall be punished for what other Muslims are doing? - yipes I am in BIG trouble."

    --> Unfortunately, this is a well-known occult teaching. (Perhaps you could could crank up your reforming of Islam another couple of knotches...?)
    "...we believe that mentioning the names of any Prophet in our prayers is blasphemy (as Allah teaches that none shall be worshipped but Allah)...."
    --> I do not see how mentioning a name is the same as worshipping the person named.


    Does Islam teach that Christians will go to Hell for worshipping Jesus? (Theosophy does not.)
    "...the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh)...."
    --> what does pbuh stand for?
     
  7. Thomas

    Thomas Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,739
    Likes Received:
    2,122
    Re: -----====(^_^)====-----

    Hi Nick —
    Nick — may I ask that you stop putting words into my mouth?

    The difference lies not in the ideas, but in the governing hermeneutic, and in your offhand dismissal of the latter, I can only read you have no real interest in what we believe, or why.

    As I have arguent cogently and consistently against this viewpoint, I can only conclude you choose to completely ignore what I have been saying. Your tone offers little hope of any reasonable discussion.

    In closing, I think I have made my point clear for others here, if not for you ... how you choose to interpret Christian doctrine is your choice, but please refrain from assuming that your interpretation is ours also.

    Again, live and let be.

    Thomas
     
  8. Thomas

    Thomas Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,739
    Likes Received:
    2,122
    Re: Theosophy: Can we agree that tormenting people for all time is wrong no matter w

    Actually it occurs to me, in light of questions above, that some might be interested in a deeper and more reasoned understanding of the Christian interpretation of Scripture, which is certainly too broad-ranging a topic to be done justice here.

    A fine document is:
    Interpretation of the Bible

    Not only does it supply a comprehensive grounding with regard to the Christian hermeneutic and its accompanying epistemology, even the briefest survey of its outline and contents should indicate just how much value Christianity places on knowledge, engaging fully in a dailogue with the philsophic trends that have shaped history, and continue to shape the Western world today.

    To quote the Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio
    "Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth"

    Thomas
     
  9. Nick the Pilot

    Nick the Pilot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2007
    Messages:
    3,833
    Likes Received:
    68
    -----====(@_@)====-----

    Thomas, you said,
    "Nick — may I ask that you stop putting words into my mouth?"

    --> We are not discussing your words, we are discussing the words of the Bible. Clearly, Genesis 3:16-17 says God punishes humanity with curses and sorrow. You have not really responded, so I can hardly be accused of putting words in your mouth. I did say, "You see God as a punishing God. I do not." You are now saying you do not see God as a punishing God?
    "I can only read you have no real interest in what we believe, or why."

    --> You have indicated you believe the Christian interpretation of the Bible is superior to the Theosophical interpretation. I am only curious in hearing why.
    "Your tone offers little hope of any reasonable discussion."

    --> You come here, into my thread, ready to tell us what the truth is. Now, you just insult me. I accuse you of the more faulty tone. Feel free to point out my specific "bad-tone" words that prevent you from explaining why God does not punish humanity.
    "...please refrain from assuming that your interpretation is ours also."

    --> I assure you, the Theosophical interpretation on this point is quite different.
    "Shall we continue walking in circles, or shall we move on?"
    --> Well, since, you ask, I have some unfinished business to bring up. I remember you made a remark that, we can lead a horse to water, but we cannot make him drink — with me being the horse. I may think Theosophy makes more sense than Christianity, but I do not go around insinuating that you have the brain-power of a horse. And now, you have the audacity to suggest that you are the picture of innocence, and that I should just forget the negative things you have been saying. Man, I do not understand your ideas of right and wrong.

    Every time I ask my question, you respond by avoiding the question, and changing the topic. I will not be deterred. You may switch the topic as often as you like. I will merely switch it back every time.

    So, you do see God as punishing us for having knowedge?
     
  10. Thomas

    Thomas Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,739
    Likes Received:
    2,122
    Re: -----====(@_@)====-----

    No, I was referring to you telling me what I believe God to be, at least we have got as far as you realising I do not believe God to be a punishing deity, even if somewhat belatedly.

    Let me reiterate,
    1:
    I have said so from the beginning.

    2:
    I have responded, repeatedly, that a Christian understanding of Scripture can only properly be understood within the context of a Christian hermeneutic.

    What you present, as a Christian viewpoint, is in fact from a Theosophist reading and hermeneutic, as evidenced by your 'clearly' — clearly according to what, one might ask? Clearly according to the meaning of the words, you might reply. Clearly then, I will answer the words have to be understood in context. You consistly refuse to accept the context, and thereby refuse to accept that Christianity might interpret the meaning in any other manner than your own, when it is patently obvious that we do not share a common hermeneutic or epistemology.

    3:
    The message of Christianity, its whole doctrine, is founded on the Revelation of the Love of God for His creature, and that humanity's estrangement and subsequent suffering is a self-induced and thereby self-inflicted wound. Without this understanding as a first principle, as a foundation of a faith and hope in the prospect and promise not just of salvation but of theosis, without this, the message can only be utterly nihilistic.

    4:
    It is in the absence of any reference to this first principle, the over-arching Love and Mercy of the Christian God, the operation of Salvific Grace in bringing humanity and the world to its perfection, and above all the Redemptive Sacrifice of the Son, that cannot but bring about a dark and pessimistic opinion of Christian doctrine.

    5:
    It is precisely in this first principle that the Christian sees God as Love (1 John 4:8) over and above all other considerations.

    +++

    Where?

    I believe I have only indicated that the Christian interpretation is different to the Theosophical interpretation. Whether it is superior is a matter of individual choice, and I have in fact honoured your choice.

    Not quite. I came here to point out a somewhat inaccurate presentation of Christian doctrine — one that you now appear to acknowledge when I asked "...please refrain from assuming that your interpretation is ours also" to which you now reply:

    That is the only point I have been trying to bring out. It is a pity it has taken this long to get there, but thank you for honouring that intention.

    I would have thought from what you say above I have made myself clear on that point. And I have acknowledged and accepted why, as a Theosophist, you might find some aspects of Scripture disagreeable. What I cannot understand is why you cannot accept that a Christian doesn't find it disagreeable.

    But it seems that heat is creeping into the discussion. I think I have said all that I needed to say, and will withdraw.

    Thomas
     
  11. Nick the Pilot

    Nick the Pilot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2007
    Messages:
    3,833
    Likes Received:
    68
    >^.^<

    Thomas, you said,
    "You are now saying you do not see God as a punishing God? --> I have said so from the beginning."

    --> Thanks for clearing that up. However, I see God's treating of Adam and Eve as, well, punishment. (you do not?) If you do not see God as a punishing God, yet God punished Adam and eve, I see a contradiction. I am hoping you can clear up this contradiction.
    "You consistly refuse to accept the context, and thereby refuse to accept that Christianity might interpret the meaning in any other manner than your own...."
    --> That is not true. Clearly, Christians interpret the Bible in a way than Theosophists. It is these differing interpretations I wish to discuss. For example, in this ongoing discussion, you see Adam and Eve's actions as basically evil, in the sense they needed to be punished. I do not see that. I would like to hear why you see it that way. We do not need to share a common hermeneutic or epistemology, in order to for you to explain the inherent evil contained within Adan and Eve's actions. Our commonality in the English language is enough.

    "The message of Christianity, its whole doctrine, is founded on the Revelation of the Love of God for His creature, and that humanity's estrangement and subsequent suffering is a self-induced and thereby self-inflicted wound."

    --> Clearly, Genesis 3:16-17 indicates Adam and Eve self-inflicting their wounds, and I suppose their refusal to follow God's rule caused their estrangement. But why was what they did evil? Why was eating the apple against God's law?
    "Without this understanding as a first principle, as a foundation of a faith and hope in the prospect and promise not just of salvation but of theosis, without this, the message can only be utterly nihilistic."

    --> I understand the idea of God's love, so my understanding of it (according to you) will allow me to understand the second idea, that the eating of the apple was evil. However, I do not see a connection. What is the connection?
    "It is in the absence of any reference to this first principle, the over-arching Love and Mercy of the Christian God, the operation of Salvific Grace in bringing humanity and the world to its perfection, and above all the Redemptive Sacrifice of the Son, that cannot but bring about a dark and pessimistic opinion of Christian doctrine."

    --> I have referred to this first principle quite nicely, so my understanding of it does not lead to my having a dark and pessimistic opinion of Christian doctrine. Thus, this first principle allows to press on, and ask how eating an apple is evil.
    "It is precisely in this first principle that the Christian sees God as Love (1 John 4:8) over and above all other considerations."​

    --> So this principle overrides the evil within eating the apple?
    "I came here to point out a somewhat inaccurate presentation of Christian doctrine..."

    --> This is all I want. It seems only natural my rejection of the apple as a symbol is evil would be construed as "a somewhat inaccurate presentation of Christian doctrine..." Please clarify why it is inaccurate.
    "I assure you, the Theosophical interpretation on this point is quite different. --> That is the only point I have been trying to bring out. It is a pity it has taken this long to get there, but thank you for honouring that intention."

    --> It has always been my meaning that Theosophical interpretations of the Bible are quite different than Christian ones. I was not aware you saw it any differently. I am glad we got this cleared up.
    "What I cannot understand is why you cannot accept that a Christian doesn't find it disagreeable."

    --> It is clear to me that Christians agree with their interpretations of the Bible. I just want you to explain those interpretations (as they do not make sense to me). You certainly think the eating of the apple was against God's law. I am just curious as to why that law was there in the first place. Why did God forbid Adam and Eve to eat the apple?
    "But it seems that heat is creeping into the discussion. I think I have said all that I needed to say, and will withdraw."
    --> Perhaps the one-way name-calling has ceased. Now we can get back to the issues, which is all that I am after:

    Why did God forbid Adam and Eve to eat the apple? Why was it against God's law?
     
  12. Thomas

    Thomas Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,739
    Likes Received:
    2,122
    Re: >^.^<


    Allow a classic analogy — a surgeon removes a patient's leg in an operation. Is it a good thing, or a bad thing? On the surface, a bad thing. But the patient had gangrene, and would have died, so the amputation serves the good, although it is not a good thing in itself.

    I'm saying your contradiction is a classic 'can't see the wood for the trees' scenario. You need to step back from the examination of individual aspects, and get a feeling for the big picture.

    Sadly time and prior committments do not allow me the freedom to engage in what would inevitably be long discussions. I joined this thread purely to signal that Theosophists and Christians do not interpret Scripture the same way. Hopefully there might be others here who can answer your queries.

    Once again, you appear to be making a statement about what I believe, when I have said nothing, and indicated nothing, of the sort. So the contradiction for me lies in your a priori assumptions. If I were of a mind to continue, I would suggest we need tackle that before we even begin to look at Scripture.

    Actually, that is not the case. It is the assumption of such that often leads to misunderstandings. The conversation would involve philosophical terms, and the definitions of such terms alter according to the philosophical paradigm. A Platonist and an Aristotelian share the same terms, but signify different things.

    Well that was an advance I wasn't expecting!

    Yes.

    How can estrangement from God, be considered anything other than good?

    Many assume that the Tree of Knowledge is the tree of knowledge per se, when closer attention to the text clearly says otherwise. The Tree of Knowledge is of the knowledge of good and evil specifically, not knowledge as such: "But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat" (Gen 2:17).

    'Good and evil' immediately sets up a duality, whereas before there was harmony: "And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed" (2:25). This is not simple schoolboy nudity, but a profound indication of a full and unalloyed experience of the interiority of all things — they are in Paradise after all, and the paradisical state rules out any 'glamour' or 'illusion' of the superficiality of things.

    "And the serpent said to the woman: No, you shall not die the death. For God doth know that in what day soever you shall eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened: and you shall be as Gods, knowing good and evil." Well this is patently an illusion and metaphysically impossible. There can only be one Absolute, and no contingent being can be Absolute ... but it signifies the egoic desire to take control of one's own destiny and thereby order the world according to oneself ... man enjoyed life in Paradise, a Divine Gift (it was God who put him there) and enjoys Divvine Graces (free communion with his Creator) but man wanted to be like God ... he wanted to appropriate that which was superadded to his nature by grace, as if it was his by right.

    "For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death." (Gen 2:17)
    This is not a threat by God, He is not saying 'eat that and I'll kill you', He is saying that if one eats the fruit, that is if one actualises a possibility (the inherent possibility that makes freedom for a contingent being a reality) then one actualises a possibility that is not real, is not true, is not good, and so forth ... and so what one actually realises is the privation of or separaation from the real, the good and the true, a separation from the Unity of All in the One, and the ultimate end of this trajectory is the privation of everything — death.

    The evil might seem to be born of the fruit, but a contemplation of the case will show that the evil lies in the free choice to do other than the Divine Will, — that is other than the good, the real, the true, etc., — in short in his pride man thought he knew better than God.

    The eating of the fruit was the rejection of that love.

    I might add, for example, that I would say, from prior exchange, that the Theosophist's notion of God's love is 'limited' from the Christian perspective. You have said, in discussions on grace and karma, that God cannot overcome karma. We believe He can — there is no limit on what God can do. I only raise this point to highlight we share a comon term, 'love', but a markedly different epistemology.

    I would say 'quite nicely' according to your own opinion, not mine.

    Whoa, Nick! I know you like to keep the upper hand in these things, but really we are by no means ready to press on ... it is your assumption, and once again I am faced with a flat statement on your part that you know all there is to know on the topic. I suggest that if the first principle was properly understood, you could answer all subsequent questions yourself.

    Because the fruit is only fruit (not an apple, by the way, nowhere is the fruit identified). Because a mushroom is toxic, that does not make it 'evil' — evil lies in the free choice to feed it to someone, knowing it is toxic.

    The evil lies in the self-willed choice to do other than the Good.

    To fully understand why a Christian thinks the way they do will require a systematic and guided approach ... a book is the least-best case, but if you're really interested I can recommend a couple.

    Thomas​
     
  13. Nick the Pilot

    Nick the Pilot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2007
    Messages:
    3,833
    Likes Received:
    68
    >^_^<

    Thomas, you said,
    "Allow a classic analogy — a surgeon removes a patient's leg in an operation. Is it a good thing, or a bad thing?"

    --> Why would eating an apple require surgery?
    "I'm saying your contradiction is a classic 'can't see the wood for the trees' scenario."

    --> I disagree. This is a classic 'there is no connection between the two.' scenario.
    "For example, in this ongoing discussion, you see Adam and Eve's actions as basically evil, in the sense they needed to be punished. I do not see that. --> Once again, you appear to be making a statement about what I believe, when I have said nothing, and indicated nothing, of the sort."

    --> Fortunately, later on in your post, you show how you believe their actions were something requiring punishment. Thanks for clearing that up.
    "Actually, that is not the case. It is the assumption of such that often leads to misunderstandings. The conversation would involve philosophical terms, and the definitions of such terms alter according to the philosophical paradigm. A Platonist and an Aristotelian share the same terms, but signify different things."

    --> Feel free to define terms. Feel free to show differences between philosophies. It can be done. These are not reasons for you to turn down the chance to explain how an apple is evil.
    "Clearly, Genesis 3:16-17 indicates Adam and Eve self-inflicting their wounds. --> Well that was an advance I wasn't expecting!"

    --> So, you see, we CAN have a "cross-paradigm" discussion. Later on in your post, you started addressing the issue at hand. I told you you could do it.
    "...and I suppose their refusal to follow God's rule caused their estrangement. --> Yes."

    --> Now we are getting somewhere. Why did God have that rule in the first place?
    "But why was what they did evil? --> How can estrangement from God, be considered anything other than good?"

    --> How can eating from the Tree of Knowledge be considered estrangement from God?
    "The Tree of Knowledge is of the knowledge of good and evil specifically, not knowledge as such...."
    --> So the Bible is saying possession of the knowledge of good and evil specifically is inherently a bad thing?


    Also, I do not see where a disctinction between (1) knowledge, and (2) the knowledge of good and evil specifically, is relevant in this case.
    "...your eyes shall be opened: and you shall be as Gods, knowing good and evil."

    --> How does eating an apple open one's eyes? What type of information gets transferred during such an act? How does eating an apple cause declusions of divinity? How does an apple cause a sudden understanding of good and evil?
    "...it signifies the egoic desire to take control of one's own destiny and thereby order the world according to oneself...."

    --> So eating an apple makes us want to ignore the Divine Plan?
    "...he wanted to appropriate that which was superadded to his nature by grace, as if it was his by right."
    --> Eating an apple is the improper appropriating of things?

    "For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death." --> This is not a threat by God...."
    --> I sounds like a threat to me. Death is death, and Adam and Eve did not die that day. (According to the Bible, they should have died within 24 hours.) This non-death strikes me as another contraction in the Bible. Thanks for pointing that out.
    "He is not saying 'eat that and I'll kill you'...."

    --> I think he is.
    "...He is saying that if one ... actualises a possibility that is not real, is not true, is not good...."

    How is eating from the Tree of Knowledge actualising a possibility that is not real? This seems to be an unwarranted deductive leap.
    "...separation from the real, the good and the true...."

    --> How does eating from the Tree of Knowledge separate us from the real, the good and the true?
    "...a separation from the Unity of All in the One...."

    --> How does eating from the Tree of Knowledge separate us from the Unity of All in the One...."?
    "...the evil lies in the free choice to do other than the Divine Will...."

    --> Theosophy agrees with this statement as it stands by itself, but Theosophists wonder how eating an apple plunges one into free choice away from God.
    "The eating of the fruit was the rejection of that love."

    --> What innate characteristic of fruit causes a rejection of divine love?
    "You have said, in discussions on grace and karma, that God cannot overcome karma. We believe He can — there is no limit on what God can do."

    --> If I were to use your monotheistic terminology, I would change your phrasing to: God does not want to overcome karma. It is not a question of what God can do, it is a question of what is fair. Theosophists pull away from Christianity, because its God does unfair things. Such unfairness is impossible in the Theosophical theory.
    "... we are by no means ready to press on...."

    --> If you mean in the sense you have not showed how eating fruit gives us knowedge that isolates us from divinity, I agree.
    "I suggest that if the first principle was properly understood, you could answer all subsequent questions yourself."

    --> The very purpose of Theosophy is to show that this statement is wrong.
    "...not an apple, by the way, nowhere is the fruit identified...."

    --> I think it is safe to say trees bear apples. Since you have declared it was not an apple, what kind of fruit was it?
    "Because a mushroom is toxic, that does not make it 'evil' — evil lies in the free choice to feed it to someone, knowing it is toxic. The evil lies in the self-willed choice to do other than the Good."
    --> It is true that toxicity in itself is not evil. Why does God see eating an apple as a toxic movement away from God? How is an apple inherently toxic?

    ~~~

    It comes down to these questions:

    How does eating an apple cause a sudden understanding of good and evil?

    Why does God see a sudden understanding of good and evil as a movement away from God?

    What kind of fruit was it, since you say it was not an apple?
     
  14. Muslimwoman

    Muslimwoman Coexistence insha'Allah

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2007
    Messages:
    3,633
    Likes Received:
    49
    Re: -----====@_@====-----

    Thank you Nick, I shall check the forum out.


    I am back in the UK with my family until early December so shall try to see it before I go back.


    It is not a situation I have ever encountered so shall bow to your better judgement. Although if a young Muslim came and said they had doubts about Islam no doubt I would suggest they kee a secret from their parents, so yes I can see where you are coming from on that one.


    If you ever want to discuss this issue with anyone you need to look up the Battle of Ahzab. This is where Muslims were betrayed and many of the verses stem from.


    You have no idea how it saddens me. The political situation in Iraq and Palestine simply feeds these people and so the hatred grows.

    Hmm, change the minds of up to 1 billion people - anyone got a spare magic wand?
    I may not have explained that very well. I have no problem mentioning the name of Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) in my prayers or saying I believe he was a Messenger of Allah because clearly I do. It is when that steps over the boundary into worship. My husband for instance will do 4 rakkah of prayer for Allah and then a further 2 for the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) to me this is idolatry and worshipping the Prophet. My husbands intention is to 'bless' the Prophet and seek his intervention on the Day of Judgement (as Christians do with Jesus (pbuh)). My belief is that we should only seek the favour of Allah on the Day of Judgement. Understand what I mean?



    Mainstream Islam does yes, as this is placing a G-d alongside G-d. My personal belief is that G-d will decide intention, does that Christian believe Jesus (pbuh) is G-d or do they simply seek to get to G-d through Jesus (pbuh). Only Allah know the answers to what is in each persons heart.
    Peace and blessings upon him. or we could say pbut (being 'them') if talking about more than one person. It is simply asking for Allah to bless that/those souls.
     
  15. Nick the Pilot

    Nick the Pilot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2007
    Messages:
    3,833
    Likes Received:
    68
    ~~(^.^)~~

    Muslimwoman, you said,
    "...if a young Muslim came and said they had doubts about Islam no doubt I would suggest they keep a secret from their parents, so yes I can see where you are coming from on that one."

    --> Such is the nature of religious differences. Fortunately, discussions like the one you and I are having are making things better, in some small way.
    "The political situation in Iraq and Palestine simply feeds these people and so the hatred grows."

    --> Theosophy say this will eventually end in total harmaony. Does Islam also predict such an eventual peaceful end to the troubles?
    "Hmm, change the minds of up to 1 billion people - anyone got a spare magic wand?"
    --> Done!

    [​IMG]

    I know that sometimes is seems like

    [​IMG]

    But Theosophy says it will eventually be

    [​IMG]



    I hope Islam has as positive an outlook as Theosophy.
    "It is when that steps over the boundary into worship."

    --> This has been a problem in many religions. The core group of people in Theosophy are called the Mahatmas, and there was a time when Mahatma-worship was becoming a problem. (The Mahatmas put a stop to that.) You may not know, but millions of Buddhists chant to someone called Amitabha Buddha everyday. As I watch some of them chant, I sometimes wonder if they too cross that line.
    "My belief is that we should only seek the favour of Allah on the Day of Judgement. Understand what I mean?"

    --> I understand exactly what you mean. However, I feel that even seeking the favor of Allah on the Day of Judgement is against Theosophical teaching.
    "Does Islam teach that Christians will go to Hell for worshipping Jesus? --> Mainstream Islam does yes, as this is placing a G-d alongside G-d."

    --> We are getting into a potentionally explosive topic, but I have always thought it odd that the Ten Commandments say we should not put a God in place of God, but they turn around and put Jesus in place of God. I see them as violating their own rules, but of course, they do not.
    "My personal belief is that G-d will decide intention, does that Christian believe Jesus (pbuh) is G-d or do they simply seek to get to G-d through Jesus (pbuh)."
    I have two responses.

    (1) I think some of them really see Jesus as God. I have actually heard Christians say we should forget the God part, and only worship Jesus. (I have also heard Christians say we should forget the Old Testament, and only only read the New Testament, but that really is a different topic.)

    (2) Theosophy teaches that all true, honest, pious religious activity earns us more time in Heaven. The way I see, a devout Hindu is making just as much progress towards Heaven as a devout Jain. (As I have said before, I see time in Heaven as temporary not eternal, so the time in Heaven can be increased.)
     
  16. Thomas

    Thomas Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,739
    Likes Received:
    2,122
    Re: >^_^<

    I posted an answer at some length yesterday, as as is the way of things, it appears to have vanished into the ether. So as time is pressing, I hope you will allow a somewhat abreviated response. Under the general rule of 'tackle the worst first', and as the most alarming aspect of our discussion did not come out until later in your post, my response treats your post almost in reverse order:

    Really? I did not know that, and quite honestly, I am staggered. But that does explain a lot — we have agreed elsewhere that the Theosophical Society focus is cosmological, which would suggest the manifestation of things rather than their causes, whereas Christianity focusses on the causes, or rather the First Cause of All, the Absolute — in and of Itself (as made known via the data of Revelation) — rather than the diversity of manifestation.

    For us the pursuit of the true philosophy — the love of knowledge — demands a rigorous pursuit of the causes that manifest effects to the First Cause — and is absolutely fundamental. Christian thinking is founded on the proven practice and methodology of the Greek philosophical tradition upon which the Western Traditions are founded ... if you reject that, then I think 'theosophy' itself as a name for your organisation is a misnomer, and we certainly have no common philosophical, hermeneutic or epistemological basis on which to continue.

    In light of this I can understand why, from my answers, you might draw a multiplicity of questions:

    That last phrase is telling, the 'unwarranted deductive leap' is simply a case of cause and effect.

    and classically:
    Quite how you draw that conclusion escapes me, except of course the obvious, but elsewhere you have evidenced more intelligence that this question supposes.

    I am inclined to believe your agenda is simply to ridicule my posts.

    +++

    However, to return to the primary issue: "...not an apple, by the way, nowhere is the fruit identified...."
    to which you replied:
    Do you? Really? I'm afraid I do not ... consider oak trees, chestnuts, pears and oranges ... I would suggest this indicates you're not really following my point, but simply seeking to find difference. You're not really thinking it throught, otherwise you would not have made such an obvious nonsensical statement.

    I think it's safe to say, and I repeat, that nowhere is the fruit of the tree identified.

    Again and again you confound yourself, Nick. Where in the text does it say it was an apple?

    It seems to me that once an error in your presentation has been demonstrated, you simply dig in deeper and keep asking questions.

    Either that, or you have a fixation about apples :)

    Another example:
    I can see, having rejected philosophy, that you might not understand the technical application of an analogy. This only saddens me the more.

    Just because you can't see it does not mean it is not there. Actually the analogy is a commonly-used one in these cases, but again, if the analogy passes you by, I can understand your confusion.

    And this is the problem ... I have done no such thing, it is you who chooses to read my answers (or not) to suit yourself.

    It can be done, but if you don't believe in First Principles, I don't see how, except by the most long-winded route.

    I joined the discussion simply to assert that Theosophists do not read Scripture as Christians do. You have acknowledged that. I'm afraid I had never realised quite how profound and far-reaching the differences between us actually are. Sadly, I have not the time to engage in subsequent discussion, and certainly your stream-of-question method is far from an ideal approach. As it is, we would need to engage in serious and lengthy discussion that would cover an immense territory before we could even begin to consider Scripture.

    As I have said, I have not the time, but I believe I am not the only Christian on this Board, and perhaps someone else has the time to answer your inquiries.

    Thomas
     
  17. taijasi

    taijasi Gnōthi seauton

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,640
    Likes Received:
    6
    Re: >^_^<

    Thomas, you are the most DISINGENUOUS person I know ... and I say this not by way of an ad hominem attack, but simply in response to the above two paragraphs - AND as a simple statement of fact. You are the most underhanded of all the people I have ever seen argue and debate here at C-R ... and all you are doing here is attempting to dismiss everything Theosophical with your weary old, holier-than-thou, `my-worldview's-better' attitude.

    DO PLEASE COME OFF IT!!! It DISGUSTS me!


    Thesosphy certainly focuses on FIRST CAUSES, and your CLAIM that you actually have a copy of The Secret Doctrine in your collection is apparently absolute BUNK ... since if you did you would AT LEAST have read the PROEM, in which HPB makes PLAIN what is the Core Teaching - by way of Three Fundamental Propositions - of the Ageless Wisdom, namely (in abbreviated form):
    (a) An Omnipresent, Eternal, Boundless, and Immutable PRINCIPLE on which all speculation is impossible, since it transcends the power of human conception and could only be dwarfed by any human expression or similitude. It is beyond the range and reach of thought -- in the words of Mandukya, "unthinkable and unspeakable."

    To render these ideas clearer to the general reader, let him set out with the postulate that there is one absolute Reality which antecedes all manifested, conditioned, being. This Infinite and Eternal Cause -- dimly formulated in the "Unconscious" and "Unknowable" of current European philosophy -- is the rootless root of "all that was, is, or ever shall be." It is of course devoid of all attributes and is essentially without any relation to manifested, finite Being. It is "Be-ness" rather than Being (in Sanskrit, Sat), and is beyond all thought or speculation.

    (b.) The Eternity of the Universe in toto as a boundless plane; periodically "the playground of numberless Universes incessantly manifesting and disappearing," called "the manifesting stars," and the "sparks of Eternity."

    This second assertion of the Secret Doctrine is the absolute universality of that law of periodicity, of flux and reflux, ebb and flow, which physical science has observed and recorded in all departments of nature. An alternation such as that of Day and Night, Life and Death, Sleeping and Waking, is a fact so common, so perfectly universal and without exception, that it is easy to comprehend that in it we see one of the absolutely fundamental laws of the universe.

    (c)The fundamental identity of all Souls with the Universal Over-Soul, the latter being itself an aspect of the Unknown Root; and the obligatory pilgrimage for every Soul -- a spark of the former -- through the Cycle of Incarnation (or "Necessity") in accordance with Cyclic and Karmic law, during the whole term. In other words, no purely spiritual Buddhi (divine Soul) can have an independent (conscious) existence before the spark which issued from the pure Essence of the Universal Sixth principle, -- or the OVER-SOUL, -- has (a) passed through every elemental form of the phenomenal world of that Manvantara, and (b) acquired individuality, first by natural impulse, and then by self-induced and self-devised efforts (checked by its Karma), thus ascending through all the degrees of intelligence, from the lowest to the highest Manas, from mineral and plant, up to the holiest archangel (Dhyani-Buddha). The pivotal doctrine of the Esoteric philosophy admits no privileges or special gifts in man, save those won by his own Ego through personal effort and merit throughout a long series of metempsychoses and reincarnations.

    Now, you can certainly dispute the above Three Fundamental Propositions, yet we, too, have our ABSOLUTE. But the difference is, we do not say that God is indefinable, UNKNOWABLE and utterly beyond all human comprehension ... then say that HE wears a hat, has a moustache and likes to take golf on Thursdays, followed by a quick trip to the pub on the way back home.

    YOU may think that there is no contradiction in trying to give the absolute all the characteristics that suit your fancy ... but then, for all your learning about the Eastern traditions, it is again clear that you need a refresher on Nirguna Brahman vs. Saguna Brahman - and a reminder as to which of these is accepted as referring to `the Ultimate' (i.e., your `Absolute') ... qua Absolute.


    NOR is the `true philosophy' simply the love of knowledge ... for though you may be able to stuff the entire Vatican library into your brain and ponder it with your human intellect, I will remind you that even the word philosophy means LOVE OF WISDOM, not love of knowledge. Thus, Theos Sophia is the WISDOM OF GOD, and this - not for the sake of accumulation - but for the BETTERMENT OF MANKIND.
    Even a Donkey can carry a library on its back.
    Theosophy, it will be noted, does NOT reject the Greek Philosophical traditions; however, we are willing to trace even these to their origins, and to continue to look in reverse in order to understand the present and the future.


    You would have us believe that there were no Mystery Schools, or that in fact, we can simply gloss over all that they had to teach for - as you have said - none of these provides ANYTHING LIKE the `Christian Revelation' ... WHICH teachings you consider, in your narrow focus, to be the SUMMUM BONUM of the Esoteric Wisdom (pardon me - KNOWLEDGE).

    I'm glad Nick has more the patience than I do. You love to cry wolf, Thomas, and insist that your are innocent of anything but the purest of philosophical and theological aspirations ... yet you straw man Nick every bit the way you straw man me, tell him he has rejected philosophy (or the love of knowledge, at any rate - your own definition), and essentially bait him - I suppose just out of old habit? I am not surprised.

    Indeed, more sarcasm ... what ARROGANCE!!!

    Yep, once again, something Nick never said or insinuated ...

    No you didn't, Thomas, for if that were the case, you could have felt your satisifaction long ago. As it is, you are HARDLY engaging in a fair discussion, or proceeding reasonably. The best that Nick can get out of you - and I admire him for his kindness, patience and willingness to try - is a few, half-sincere responses, though mostly you just DODGE the real issues, as usual.

    Always avoiding the sticky issues, and at best launching into a lengthy tractate on Roman Catholic history and authoritative Church dogma, I hope Francis will tear into you every bit the way she has us Theosophists (though I have made clear I have no official connection, or membership) ... since I think you best even me for cutting & pasting.

    Indeed, if you read my post MINUS the quotations, you will still see the meat of my point - which is that your methods are underhanded, that you insist on straw-manning people rather than engaging them on issues directly, and that you wear your blinders far too tightly, for if you paid attention to WORD ONE of the Ageless Wisdom - Theosophy, in this case - you would be forced to admit, on SOUND philosophical footing, that our PHILOSOPHY is in fact, EVERY BIT AS DEVELOPED, metaphysically sound, concerned with FIRST PRINCPLES, etc. as yours - IF NOT A GOOD BIT MORESO ... penetrating far, far deeper into the true state of things than you shall ever do with your INTELLECT, no matter how much baggage you load it up with, and no matter how effectively & cleverly you manage to sharpen your wit against those bold enough to TAKE YOU & YOUR THEOLOGY on, directly.

    You and I have seldom been able to carry on a pleasant, rational discussion ... and this may not be any kind of exception to the rule. This is not even my argument (!), yet I am so disgusted by what I see, that I will take the time to comment ... and this is (of course) at risk of irritating Nick, since he at least, was able to make a bit of headway with you.

    I admire you for that, Nick, and I appreciate your patience - but I think it is apparent that what Thomas wishes is not in fact, "to assert that Theosophists do not read Scripture as Christians do" ... instead, he is up to the same-old, same-old CRUSADE, whose only real goal is an old-fashioned egotistical game of JOUST (perhaps 60%), and a chance to toe the party line by airing the views of all his favorite Church authorities and selected `experts' (40%).

    If he will step outside of his ego, just long enough to try and think rationally, I believe he will discover that although each of us is really QUITE content with our own, chosen spiritual path (none of us here is going door-to-door begging for a religious or ideological bandwagon to hop onto) ... there is nevertheless a GREAT deal that he can learn, as well as share, by a willingness to enter into an honest-to-goodness, rational, sincere DISCUSSION.

    But you see, when all you want to do is "point out that this is NOT how Roman Catholics `see it,'" what you're really just insisting is that your understanding is ill-founded. You can deny this, Thomas, and feign a purely innocent motive ... but I'm afraid we've BEEN DOWN this road before, QUITE a number of times, and we're quite used to hearing you tell us how shallow our philosphy is, how misguided we all are, and how SUPERIOR your theology is to anything poor ol' HPB could ever cook up from her `Mahatmas.'

    As biting and acrid as your true attitude is, Thomas, how is you put it - `expressed by words sweetened as with honey' - I'm afraid it really just constitutes one more insignificant drop of the poison, whose cup we will gladly drain - as every student must - as we endeavor to follow in the steps of Herakles, even performing the same Labors, as did your Savior - and mine.

    For all my egotism, I KNOW that I am no different than you, and in fact, I KNOW that we both tread the same path, however gyral and confused its perambulations may sometimes appear. What irks me, is that someone such as you ... should either fail to recognize that it is so, or would dare to deny it - knowing such.

    For if I have misjudged, then I will but walk this way a little longer ... and live just one more day, to do the things I should have done. :eek:

    ~Andrew
     
  18. Nick the Pilot

    Nick the Pilot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2007
    Messages:
    3,833
    Likes Received:
    68
    ~(=^.^=)~

    Thomas,

    I see our discussion as coming down to these three questions.

    (1) How does eating fruit cause a sudden understanding of good and evil?

    (2) Why does God see a sudden understanding of good and evil as a movement away from God?

    (3) What kind of fruit was it, since you say it was not an apple?


    Let's see your answers. You said,
    "I posted an answer at some length yesterday, as as is the way of things, it appears to have vanished into the ether."

    --> I have also had this happen. The best thing to do is, write a post, copy it into a word-processing file, save it, post the post, then delete the file. This has saved me a great deal of time and effort.
    "...the Theosophical Society focus is cosmological, which would suggest [a focusing on] the manifestation of things rather than their causes, whereas Christianity focusses on the causes, or rather the First Cause of All, the Absolute...."

    --> That is an interesting analogy. According to Theosophy, we know practially nothing about the Absolute. (The Absolute is intentionally difficult for us to understand, as it is hidden behind the Firmament in Genesis, which Theosophy calls the Wall of Fire. Theosophy agrees more with Buddhism and disagrees more with Christianity, in that we need to focus on what is happening right here, right now (instead of putting the main focus on what will happen in the future). In this sense, I can see why you see Theosophy (and Buddhism) as "manifestation-oriented". However, Thesosphy also strives to explain the true nature of the Absolute (a nearly impossible task). Theosophy calls the Absolute "the One True Reality". In this way, Theosophy emphasizes both the here and now, and the One Reality.
    "...in and of Itself (as made known via the data of Revelation) — rather than the diversity of manifestation."
    --> In one way, I agree with you on this statement. Christiantiy teaches we go the Heaven, and that is it for all of eternity. Theosophy disagrees, saying there are many, many levels we will manifest on, after we leave the human level of manifestation behind. (Stars are seen as Beings of High Manifestation. According to Theosophy, humans will become Beings within Stars one day.) Therefore, Theosophy celebrates a much larger "diversity of manifestation" than Christiantiy.


    Theosophy also says we were the animals on a previous planet. This also gets into more levels of manifestation.
    "For us the pursuit of the true philosophy — the love of knowledge — demands a rigorous pursuit of the causes that manifest effects to the First Cause — and is absolutely fundamental. Christian thinking is founded on the proven practice and methodology of the Greek philosophical tradition upon which the Western Traditions are founded ... if you reject that, then I think 'theosophy' itself as a name for your organisation is a misnomer, and we certainly have no common philosophical, hermeneutic or epistemological basis on which to continue."

    --> Theosophy agrees with this definition of your "first principle". It was your deductive leap about the use of your "first principle" (in your previous post) that I disagree with.
    "What innate characteristic of fruit causes a rejection of divine love? --> Quite how you draw that conclusion escapes me, except of course the obvious, but elsewhere you have evidenced more intelligence that this question supposes. --> I am inclined to believe your agenda is simply to ridicule my posts."
    --> Ah, Thomas, you are ever the clever debater. Use any trick you can, instead of answering the question. Perhaps my wording was confusing. I think this question is worded better.


    (1) How does eating fruit cause a sudden understanding of good and evil?
    "I think it's safe to say, and I repeat, that nowhere is the fruit of the tree identified."

    (3) What kind of fruit was it, since you say it was not an apple?
    "Where in the text does it say it was an apple?"

    --> Nowhere. And the type of fruit was...?
    "...you simply dig in deeper and keep asking questions."

    --> You have no idea how big of a compliment you have just paid me.
    "Either that, or you have a fixation about apples..."
    --> I have a fixation about how eating fruit causes a sudden understanding of good and evil.


    (1) How does eating fruit cause a sudden understanding of good and evil?
    "Why would eating an apple require surgery? --> I can see, having rejected philosophy, that you might not understand the technical application of an analogy. This only saddens me the more."

    --> Free free to feel sad. Feel free to explain the analogy.
    "I joined the discussion simply to assert that Theosophists do not read Scripture as Christians do."

    --> I agree. Actually, I welcome your participation in this discussion. The more you can explain your interpretations of the Bible, the better we can understand Christianity.
    "I'm afraid I had never realised quite how profound and far-reaching the differences between us actually are."

    --> I realized that a long time ago.
    "Sadly, I have not the time to engage in subsequent discussion..."

    --> Happily, I do.
    "...and certainly your stream-of-question method is far from an ideal approach."

    --> I would describe it more as a question-and-answer approach. I think this system works quite well.
    "As it is, we would need to engage in serious and lengthy discussion that would cover an immense territory before we could even begin to consider Scripture."

    --> I think it is not necessary. If you actually sat down and answered my three questions, I think it would take a lot less time than you think.
    "...perhaps someone else has the time to answer your inquiries."
    --> This is not about who answers the questions. I just want the three questions answered.
     
  19. Thomas

    Thomas Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,739
    Likes Received:
    2,122
    Re: ~(=^.^=)~

    As I have stated in my last posts, these have been answered. That you haven't read the answer is not my fault.

    Let's try a different tack. Where in Genesis does it say it was an apple?
    Answer that one, and you might find something to your benefit.

    And with regard to philosophy:
    A:
    and

    B:
    If A is the case then B can only be logically impossible. How can you explain the true nature of anything you know practically nothing about?

    Better to inquire of those who do know.

    Thomas
     
  20. taijasi

    taijasi Gnōthi seauton

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,640
    Likes Received:
    6
    Re: ~(=^.^=)~

    Thomas, I take back everything that I said. you are the true master of hilarity! And I do mean that!
     

Share This Page